[Sierra] Xbox 360 is holding back the PS3

And quite frankly, the consoles are holding back the PC.

Live with it.

This is OLD.

The part I found funny is when they admit they are one of only a few developers who enjoy working with the PS3. Kind of a backhanded compliment.

Old, and still not interesting as the game looks like crap.

VG247: Why choose to lead on the PS3?

Mark Randell: Very simple reason: Ghostbusters is the property of Sony Pictures.

lol...

BreakingPoint8

old, fictional and stuipid. i can't beleive the cows fell for this one... makes you guys look really bad. shouldn't yoy be hyping killzone2 or something?

Ugh... This line:

The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.

Makes it sound like it came from someone on these boards rather than a developer.

mattbbpl

And quite frankly, the consoles are holding back the PC.

Live with it.

thrones

lol typical Sony propaganda

Aren't they the same developers behind 50: Bullet Proof/Blood in the Sand?


Pro_wrestler

I am afraid so, it seems only shovelware devs take the time to comment on the whole ps3 vs 360 thing. Real devs know that each console has its good and bad parts, but that bote are equaly awsome

[QUOTE="LordoftheVacas"][QUOTE="micky4889"][QUOTE="Awinagainov"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]

Ugh... This line:

The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.

Makes it sound like it came from someone on these boards rather than a developer.

micky4889

owned

I'll enlight in red what your PS3 is doing right now in your home... not what could of been or what the prototype was running.

CPU: Cell Processor

* 7 x SPE @3.2GHz

* Synergistic Processor Elements (SPEs)

According to IBM a single SPE (which is just 15 square millimetres and consumes less than 5 Watts at 4GHz) can perform as well as a top end (single core) desktop CPU given the right task.

micky4889

You're still thinking of the SPEs as a general purpose core. This isn't applicable.

SPEs are RISC (reduced instruction set) processors. This means that they can perform specific operations (in this case, floating point operations) very well. However, in order to achieve this benefit they make sacrifices in other areas (by reducing the number of circuits and instructions in their design). This makes them very inefficient at other tasks.

RISC processors are not new. They've been around for a long time. They aren't used in PCs partly because of the resistance to changing the x86, PowerPC standards, but also because they just aren't suitable for a general purpose machine. (In case you're wondering, games use a myriad of operation types, making them ideal candidates for general purpose CPUs).

Some of these operations that run slowly on the SPEs can be avoided with clever programming. Many cannot.

Such is the nature of RISC processors. It's a game of give and take.

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]

Got something to say big boy? I have my Playstation 3 sitting right here next to my Xbox 360 and Wii.

I also have never said a game looks like crap because it's on the Playstation 3.

tonythestudent

Big boy? Wtf are you flirting with me or just being a keyboard warrior?

ROFL KEYBOARD WARRIOR OMG

Old, and still not interesting as the game looks like crap.

VG247: Why choose to lead on the PS3?

Mark Randell: Very simple reason: Ghostbusters is the property of Sony Pictures.

lol...

BreakingPoint8

Why didn't Sony just spend an extra 10-15 million and make it exclusive to the PS3, if it was that big of a deal to the developers? Ghostbusters isn't even a HOT property anymore. They aren't making any more movies from it. The only wayt to sell a decent amount of copies of this game was to have it multiplat.

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]

Old, and still not interesting as the game looks like crap.

VG247: Why choose to lead on the PS3?

Mark Randell: Very simple reason: Ghostbusters is the property of Sony Pictures.

lol...

blackace

Why didn't Sony just spend an extra 10-15 million and make it exclusive to the PS3, if it was that big of a deal to the developers? Ghostbusters isn't even a HOT property anymore. They aren't making any more movies from it. The only wayt to sell a decent amount of copies of this game was to have it multiplat.

There's a new movie coming out. Bill Murray has already declined the role. It's title is "Ghostbusters in Hell".

Yeah, it's going to be awful.

lol. I didn't wanna do this man! but you made me! you made me bring out the pictures, instead of listening to people that have been in the industry instead of people that have been playing games longer then us and are PAID to judge stuff i've pulled out the pictures and said let us users compare the screen shots! you just made me do it!

I'm sorry but pull out as many screen shots as you want, pull out video.
This still does not change the fact the common trend in ratings is that gears of war is better graphically then uncharted.
But I'll pull out some more numbers (numbers are much more trustworthy then the opinions of biased users, and screen shots, screen shots which can be altered.)

Gamerankings average score
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928234.asp?q=gears
93.7%

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/932984.asp?q=uncharted
89.2%

Vgchartz sales numbers
Uncharted-1.55 million

Gears of war-5.16 Million


And scores? i've all ready shown that the common trend among all sites is that gears of war graphically is better then uncharted graphically, the only places that commonly gave a higher score in graphics we're playstation only sites and thus we dont have a gears of war review from them so we have no comparison basis.

Face it critically, sales wise gears of war is better then uncharted, Is uncharted a bad game? YES! it is! i've played it its a crappy looking game in my opinion with brain dead AI, and stupid gameplay design, but it was such good crap it got a higher score then other ps3 games...which is kind of telling of the amount of bad games on the ps3.

WilliamRLBaker

quit posting garbage, the majority of web sites do indeed claim Uncharted as the current graphics king. Uncharted was released like a year after gears so of course its going to have higher standards as far as graphics are concerned. Also go look at some pictures, its pretty freaking obvious.

Ghostbusters= GOTY for sure!

Lets all hype it everybody!

dragon_master11

LOL!!! Let's not and say we did.

[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]

Old, and still not interesting as the game looks like crap.

VG247: Why choose to lead on the PS3?

Mark Randell: Very simple reason: Ghostbusters is the property of Sony Pictures.

lol...

mattbbpl

Why didn't Sony just spend an extra 10-15 million and make it exclusive to the PS3, if it was that big of a deal to the developers? Ghostbusters isn't even a HOT property anymore. They aren't making any more movies from it. The only wayt to sell a decent amount of copies of this game was to have it multiplat.

There's a new movie coming out. Bill Murray has already declined the role. It's title is "Ghostbusters in Hell".

Yeah, it's going to be awful.

I don't think that will ever get made. Bill Murray won't do another one unless Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd write the script and start in it. They all pretty much said they wouldn't so another unless all 3 of them were in it and the script was incredible. I honestly can't see another Ghostbusters movie being make with out those 3 in it. It would be a total disaster.

They are doing the voices for the video game, so that's as close as we'll get for now.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]

Old, and still not interesting as the game looks like crap.

VG247: Why choose to lead on the PS3?

Mark Randell: Very simple reason: Ghostbusters is the property of Sony Pictures.

lol...

blackace

Why didn't Sony just spend an extra 10-15 million and make it exclusive to the PS3, if it was that big of a deal to the developers? Ghostbusters isn't even a HOT property anymore. They aren't making any more movies from it. The only wayt to sell a decent amount of copies of this game was to have it multiplat.

There's a new movie coming out. Bill Murray has already declined the role. It's title is "Ghostbusters in Hell".

Yeah, it's going to be awful.

I don't think that will ever get made. Bill Murray won't do another one unless Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd write the script and start in it. They all pretty much said they wouldn't so another unless all 3 of them were in it and the script was incredible. I honestly can't see another Ghostbusters movie being make with out those 3 in it. It would be a total disaster.

They are doing the voices for the video game, so that's as close as we'll get for now.

Oh, my mistake. I didn't realize the movie had been cancelled. I thought they would just get new actors.

Oh well. I can't say I'm disappointed as it would have most certainly been terrible.

You dont think that SCEA and Sony Pictures run as seperate entities do you?

[QUOTE="BreakingPoint8"]

Old, and still not interesting as the game looks like crap.

VG247: Why choose to lead on the PS3?

Mark Randell: Very simple reason: Ghostbusters is the property of Sony Pictures.

lol...

Vasichko

[QUOTE="micky4889"]

CPU: Cell Processor

* 7 x SPE @3.2GHz

* Synergistic Processor Elements (SPEs)

According to IBM a single SPE (which is just 15 square millimetres and consumes less than 5 Watts at 4GHz) can perform as well as a top end (single core) desktop CPU given the right task.

mattbbpl

You're still thinking of the SPEs as a general purpose core. This isn't applicable.

SPEs are RISC (reduced instruction set) processors. This means that they can perform specific operations (in this case, floating point operations) very well. However, in order to achieve this benefit they make sacrifices in other areas (by reducing the number of circuits and instructions in their design). This makes them very inefficient at other tasks.

RISC processors are not new. They've been around for a long time. They aren't used in PCs partly because of the resistance to changing the x86, PowerPC standards, but also because they just aren't suitable for a general purpose machine. (In case you're wondering, games use a myriad of operation types, making them ideal candidates for general purpose CPUs).

Some of these operations that run slowly on the SPEs can be avoided with clever programming. Many cannot.

Such is the nature of RISC processors. It's a game of give and take.

Ugh... This line:

The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.

Makes it sound like it came from someone on these boards rather than a developer.

mattbbpl

lmfao I was thinking the same damn thing!! man at least if your going to argue the superiority of one console over the other please use something that sounds intelligent because both systems have different architectures....

The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.MR

50Gb vs 7Gb is a lot too...

this is silly! Blaming the 360 for the game's short comings. All of this sounds so made up and fabricated, it's too silly to be true. So far this guy's the only developer that finds it easier to develope on the PS3 as opposed to the 360 (which was basically made for 3rd party development.)

[QUOTE="MR"] The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.Kane04

50Gb vs 7Gb is a lot too...

[QUOTE="Kane04"]

[QUOTE="MR"] The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.HuusAsking

50Gb vs 7Gb is a lot too...

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Kane04"]

[QUOTE="MR"] The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.edwise18

50Gb vs 7Gb is a lot too...

lol. I didn't wanna do this man! but you made me! you made me bring out the pictures, instead of listening to people that have been in the industry instead of people that have been playing games longer then us and are PAID to judge stuff i've pulled out the pictures and said let us users compare the screen shots! you just made me do it!

I'm sorry but pull out as many screen shots as you want, pull out video.
This still does not change the fact the common trend in ratings is that gears of war is better graphically then uncharted.
But I'll pull out some more numbers (numbers are much more trustworthy then the opinions of biased users, and screen shots, screen shots which can be altered.)

Gamerankings average score
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928234.asp?q=gears
93.7%

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/932984.asp?q=uncharted
89.2%

Vgchartz sales numbers
Uncharted-1.55 million

Gears of war-5.16 Million


And scores? i've all ready shown that the common trend among all sites is that gears of war graphically is better then uncharted graphically, the only places that commonly gave a higher score in graphics we're playstation only sites and thus we dont have a gears of war review from them so we have no comparison basis.

Face it critically, sales wise gears of war is better then uncharted, Is uncharted a bad game? YES! it is! i've played it its a crappy looking game in my opinion with brain dead AI, and stupid gameplay design, but it was such good crap it got a higher score then other ps3 games...which is kind of telling of the amount of bad games on the ps3.

WilliamRLBaker

I was beginning to think I was the only one who thinks Uncharted is overrrated.

this is silly! Blaming the 360 for the game's short comings. All of this sounds so made up and fabricated, it's too silly to be true. So far this guy's the only developer that finds it easier to develope on the PS3 as opposed to the 360 (which was basically made for 3rd party development.)

8drunkengods

I don't think they say it is EASIER to develop for PS3. Just that the PS3 is more powerful. They are NOT the only developers who have said that. Even some third party devs have said the PS3 is more powerful.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

lol. I didn't wanna do this man! but you made me! you made me bring out the pictures, instead of listening to people that have been in the industry instead of people that have been playing games longer then us and are PAID to judge stuff i've pulled out the pictures and said let us users compare the screen shots! you just made me do it!

I'm sorry but pull out as many screen shots as you want, pull out video.
This still does not change the fact the common trend in ratings is that gears of war is better graphically then uncharted.
But I'll pull out some more numbers (numbers are much more trustworthy then the opinions of biased users, and screen shots, screen shots which can be altered.)

Gamerankings average score
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/928234.asp?q=gears
93.7%

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/932984.asp?q=uncharted
89.2%

Vgchartz sales numbers
Uncharted-1.55 million

Gears of war-5.16 Million


And scores? i've all ready shown that the common trend among all sites is that gears of war graphically is better then uncharted graphically, the only places that commonly gave a higher score in graphics we're playstation only sites and thus we dont have a gears of war review from them so we have no comparison basis.

Face it critically, sales wise gears of war is better then uncharted, Is uncharted a bad game? YES! it is! i've played it its a crappy looking game in my opinion with brain dead AI, and stupid gameplay design, but it was such good crap it got a higher score then other ps3 games...which is kind of telling of the amount of bad games on the ps3.

Bren128

quit posting garbage, the majority of web sites do indeed claim Uncharted as the current graphics king. Uncharted was released like a year after gears so of course its going to have higher standards as far as graphics are concerned. Also go look at some pictures, its pretty freaking obvious.

And anyone who would bash Uncharted and say it is a bad game with such hatred, is a fanboy who hasn't played the game. Uncharted is an amazing game.

Good, that's what you get for screwing up my xbox games that the PS2 was lead platform for. Now the cycle will be for the PS3 to screw up development for the next Xbox whenever that comes around.

I guess we are all screwed. Congrats on learning a little something about how the world works.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="clintos59"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]And as i've said before if it was an 360 only game it would look worlds better, the ps3 holds the 360 back in graphics.clintos59

Good Point and thats why Uncharted is still considered the best looking console game right now.

by who's opinion? cows? cause last i checked the rest of the world considered gears of war still graphically better, i mean with uncharted we get plastic looking characters and plastic looking foilage and if it did look better which is doesn't it was at the sacrafice of gameplay and AI. The gameplay on that game sucked its tomb raider with a dude, and the AI? sorry but its still a fact enemies standing in the middle of a room reloading while geting shot at, or not taking cover, or taking cover while facing you is dumb AI. and gameplay design? how easy is it to shoot gas barrels *there are lots of gas barrel in this game*

P.S: hence the 8.0 here for uncharted and the 9.5 or is it 9.6 for gears of war here.

U keep bringing up scores but were talking about the graphics here. And even though cows do talk alot of crap in these forums, many sites believe uncharted>>gears graphically. Anyone who says no is blind, heck many game sites even think MGS4 looks better then gears. Dont get me wrong gears 2 will come out and prolly take the crown back but as of now uncharted is still the best looking console game and has been debated in system wars many times already it is the best looking console game. Just because some ppl love the first gears to death man doesnt mean it is the best graphical game, some lemmings need to understand that there will always be another better looking game to take that crown. Gears set the bench mark in graphics and was dethroned, but some of u just cant let that go and want to defend it even now when we already have games that look better then it.

I own both systems and games. And the only people who think Uncharted looks better than Gears of Wars are blind. The GFX for Gears, Bioshock, and probably COD4 are all better than Uncharteds.

And anyone who would bash Uncharted and say it is a bad game with such hatred, is a fanboy who hasn't played the game. Uncharted is an amazing game.

ZIMdoom

When people start prasing games that last under 15 hours and have zero replay value, there is something seriously wrong with the future of gaming..

[QUOTE="8drunkengods"]

this is silly! Blaming the 360 for the game's short comings. All of this sounds so made up and fabricated, it's too silly to be true. So far this guy's the only developer that finds it easier to develope on the PS3 as opposed to the 360 (which was basically made for 3rd party development.)

ZIMdoom

I don't think they say it is EASIER to develop for PS3. Just that the PS3 is more powerful. They are NOT the only developers who have said that. Even some third party devs have said the PS3 is more powerful.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="8drunkengods"]

this is silly! Blaming the 360 for the game's short comings. All of this sounds so made up and fabricated, it's too silly to be true. So far this guy's the only developer that finds it easier to develope on the PS3 as opposed to the 360 (which was basically made for 3rd party development.)

HuusAsking

I don't think they say it is EASIER to develop for PS3. Just that the PS3 is more powerful. They are NOT the only developers who have said that. Even some third party devs have said the PS3 is more powerful.

True for now it does cost more but if they look at things in the big picture the money spent now could bring a lot more in return in the end. This is how Sony was able to sell the first PS3 for a fairly large lose on each console sold but in the end the return could be much higher than if they tried making a profit from day one. With PS history of long there consoles last on the market it also is a big plus for developers to spend the money now and reap the rewards later in the systems life span.

[QUOTE="clintos59"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="clintos59"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]And as i've said before if it was an 360 only game it would look worlds better, the ps3 holds the 360 back in graphics.KingNabster

Good Point and thats why Uncharted is still considered the best looking console game right now.

by who's opinion? cows? cause last i checked the rest of the world considered gears of war still graphically better, i mean with uncharted we get plastic looking characters and plastic looking foilage and if it did look better which is doesn't it was at the sacrafice of gameplay and AI. The gameplay on that game sucked its tomb raider with a dude, and the AI? sorry but its still a fact enemies standing in the middle of a room reloading while geting shot at, or not taking cover, or taking cover while facing you is dumb AI. and gameplay design? how easy is it to shoot gas barrels *there are lots of gas barrel in this game*

P.S: hence the 8.0 here for uncharted and the 9.5 or is it 9.6 for gears of war here.

U keep bringing up scores but were talking about the graphics here. And even though cows do talk alot of crap in these forums, many sites believe uncharted>>gears graphically. Anyone who says no is blind, heck many game sites even think MGS4 looks better then gears. Dont get me wrong gears 2 will come out and prolly take the crown back but as of now uncharted is still the best looking console game and has been debated in system wars many times already it is the best looking console game. Just because some ppl love the first gears to death man doesnt mean it is the best graphical game, some lemmings need to understand that there will always be another better looking game to take that crown. Gears set the bench mark in graphics and was dethroned, but some of u just cant let that go and want to defend it even now when we already have games that look better then it.

I own both systems and games. And the only people who think Uncharted looks better than Gears of Wars are blind. The GFX for Gears, Bioshock, and probably COD4 are all better than Uncharteds.

What the hell? are you blind? lol since you own both systems and games maybe you should go get some lasik surgery to actually enjoy the ones that you have.

Everyone knows the PS3 can process more and a lot of people say "Well why doesn't it have way better graphics"? It's because the GPU isn't better, it has more CPU power!! patriots7672

Well technically, the PS3 can handle more objects.. the part they didnt tell you is that they woudl all have to be the same texture, and lower resolution textures than the 360 version... Yes, everythign can be spun into whatever you want to hear. A sony owned developer praising the PS3? wow, i'm shocked.

It seems the only devs. to make a game right from a PS3--->360 conversion is Criterion.

[QUOTE="Vasichko"]

You dont think that SCEA and Sony Pictures run as seperate entities do you?

HarlockJC

It always makes you wonder why this game and the James Bond games are not only on the PS3. When Sony owns the rights.

Royalties? Why not release it on multiple consoles to get some newfound or additional profit.

I own both systems and games.And the only people who think Uncharted looks better than Gears of Wars are blind.

KingNabster

And the only people who thing GeOW looks better than 'Uncharted: Drakes Fortune' are blind; there, now both bases can't see.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="8drunkengods"]

this is silly! Blaming the 360 for the game's short comings. All of this sounds so made up and fabricated, it's too silly to be true. So far this guy's the only developer that finds it easier to develope on the PS3 as opposed to the 360 (which was basically made for 3rd party development.)

jimm895

I don't think they say it is EASIER to develop for PS3. Just that the PS3 is more powerful. They are NOT the only developers who have said that. Even some third party devs have said the PS3 is more powerful.

True for now it does cost more but if they look at things in the big picture the money spent now could bring a lot more in return in the end. This is how Sony was able to sell the first PS3 for a fairly large lose on each console sold but in the end the return could be much higher than if they tried making a profit from day one. With PS history of long there consoles last on the market it also is a big plus for developers to spend the money now and reap the rewards later in the systems life span.

Ugh... This line:

The PlayStation 3 has seven processors and the 360 only has three, so seven versus three means you can do a lot more on the PS3.

Makes it sound like it came from someone on these boards rather than a developer.

mattbbpl

PS3 has 7 cores only uses 6.

Xbox 360 has 3 cores 2 threads each.

Their the same.

Noob developer.

PS3 has 7 cores only uses 6.

Xbox 360 has 3 cores 2 threads each.

Their the same.

Noob developer.

-Ninja_Dog-

Oh for heaven's sake...