[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]No, the way you're describing it would suggest that Crysis is not optimised, no? Don't forget crysis renders its lighting and shadows over a large area, on higher settings the engine is rendering hundreds of trees, grass, branches all dynamically, casting shadows etc. Unoptimised, without trying to reduce poly count and have a few of its own tricks, Crysis just wouldn't run in realtime even on the latest cards. Crysis code isn't linear either, its one of the few games that does take advantage of multi-core cpu's, CUDA, physx etc. I personally believe that creating a game like crysis would be much more a complicated and technical challenge that Uncharted. Not to mention, creating good AI in an open environment itself is notoriously an impossible task. Uncharted/ Uncharted 2 no doubt are great technical achievements considering the hardware its running on but the game and level design is well suited to the hardware. Good use of LOD and keeping level size down keeps everything manageable.Pariah-

I'm not totally sure what you mean by not optimized; an engine that has a certain amount of versatility according to the game that's being made is a given for any product. Additionally, that doesn't make it any less of a memory concern as opposed to a coding concern. The latter issue becomes secondary when the programmers assume that they have an insane amount of space to work within. It's as if they decided most people would have a quad core plus four gigs of ram.

My point is that it tries to be the more graphically impressive game than any other, which isn't hard to accomplish with regards to development stages. But if the game is user-unfriendly with most technology out there, it doesn't say much about it.

I can see what you're saying but Crysis isn't simply an ordinary game scaled up. Creating a game environment like Crysis is technically a difficult task in itself. When you have linear levels, low number of enemies, low number of objects, low numbers for rendering light and shadows, coding can be straight-forward. A large open environment, with considerably more objects all interacting, from a mathematical perspective is going to be exponentially more complicated. Take even the simplest object in Crysis, say for example a tree, it moves, it sways to real time calculated forces, it breaks and it interacts with the game world. It has much higher resolution textures and crysis even has occlusion mapping, water refracting and reflecting light while the water itself moves in waves etc.

Basically, what I am trying to get across is that if you take the component parts of both games, Crysis and Uncharted, take anything from a simple object model to the actual scenery generated, Crysis has the much more complicated design, it explores physics, lighting even ai to a much greater level of detail. Multily that by the complex and large scale levels and just the testing/ QA stages of the games development become again a much more time consuming process.

Also, AI. Crysis does not have 'bad' ai. Crysis tries to simulate AI in a large scale open environment. This has always been notoriously difficult to achieve when compared with the results of coding AI for linear levels. It's simply because the 'players' action can be more more accurately predetermined where in an open level, a player's actions are again exponentially more difficult to anticipate.

Why do you people keep talking about the the way the PS3 works... the devs can only do what Sony allows them to do... it isn't like they develope a system from the ground up to work on the console... they get dev kits from Microsoft and Sony and build their game engines on those platforms, then build their game on the engine... It has nothing to do with the way the PS3 is built or what specs it has...

They are saying that they put their game/engine on the 360 using Microsoft's dev kit and it worked fine... and they did the same thing on PS3 and it isn't working fine... it has nothing to do with THQ... it has to do with Sony/PS3...

Squeets

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][spoiler] Crysis [/spoiler] Pariah-

Don't forget crysis renders its lighting and shadows over a large area, on higher settings the engine is rendering hundreds of trees, grass, branches all dynamically, casting shadows etc. Unoptimised, without trying to reduce poly count and have a few of its own tricks, Crysis just wouldn't run in realtime even on the latest cards. Crysis code isn't linear either, its one of the few games that does take advantage of multi-core cpu's, CUDA, physx etc. I personally believe that creating a game like crysis would be much more a complicated and technical challenge that Uncharted. Not to mention, creating good AI in an open environment itself is notoriously an impossible task.

Uncharted/ Uncharted 2 no doubt are great technical achievements considering the hardware its running on but the game and level design is well suited to the hardware. Good use of LOD and keeping level size down keeps everything manageable.

Guerilla, naughty dog, insomniac....hell, even some ubisoft titles are great looking with awesome framerates. It just goes to show you that some devs aren't as good as others. For the most part its EU/aisian devs>>>American devs.mclovin401

As has already been discussed :roll: they are great developers on the PS3 platform. THQ, Valve, ID etc are not 'bad' developers or any less of a game developer just because they choose not to develop exclusively or put time, resources and considerable human resources behind porting a game to the PS3 platform.

For me at least, Uncharted is one of the PS3 games that doesn't seem to sacrifice on bump mapping and textures.

Judging by the logic of this developer we should all stay in SNES era since, you know, it's easy to program our games on..

Technology advancement are not made out of thin air, nor are they easy.

Cell is not something internships are though this days, which is mostly good old 20 years programming, and this is one of the issues.

IBM pushed the PS3 technologically, it takes different mind set to program for the console. Excuses such as THQ's are just that, excuses.

I really don't worry much about it, those developers who wish to push their games visually and technologically to next level, PS3 offers. So far, there has been few games to take advantage of the Cell, unless you're completely blinded by fanboys or today's hate towards every console, the difference is here.

It just takes an open mind to appreciate and see it.

Sokol4ever

THQ are not saying this idly are they now? They have produced some very good game, so have Valve so have ID etc. It's not lazyness it's making a business decision not to spend what Guerilla Games have!

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="asylumni"]

Gee, I can make analogies, too. PS 3 is like the hard teacher in school, where the 360 is the easy teacher. The hard teacher keeps pushing their students to be better and learn new things so the students will be able to greatly excel afterward, while the easy teacher lets the students coast on what they already know and only allows the students to just get by afterwords. The student with the hard teacher will be much better prepared, going forth, to deal with any changes to come.

asylumni

Sorry but you've got it the wrong way round and moreover, it's kind of patronising to developers to assume they're the students and Sony are the teachers! Sony should treat they're developers as investors and should make the process easy and rewarding not a challenge. I mean Sony are not in control, forcing developers to jump through hoops only benefits the developers if they're developing for the PS3. Again, it's quite arrogant to assume that everyone wants to work on your platform, again its the attitude that what Sony do everyone will follow. Many developers are just laughing at the PS3 and saying 'whatever!' and just look to the many other successful platforms to develop on. Sony have learned that humilty towards the developers is just as important. When all is said and done, developers can just develop on other platforms but Sony cannot survive without developers wanting to work on their platform.

It's only patronizing if the developer thinks they have nothing left to learn. One thing the tech industry is not, is static. There are always changes; and such an attitude is the height of arrogance. Everything a developer learns in mastering the PS3 architecture can only benefit them in the future. Heck, most things could even be applied right now on other platforms.

There are very good reasons why Sony designed the PS3 the way they did and there are reasons why it is a challenge. Some of the top minds of the industry had a hand in the design of the chips. They didn't design the system just to see what "hoops" they could make developers jump through, it was to maximize the potential of the hardware for the technology and processes that were available at the time. They didn't just look at how things were done in the past, but also the direction they felt things were going in the future and attempted to get a little ahead of the curve. It's not just "hard" for the sake of being "hard". To claim such is completely dismissing the work done by IBM, Nvidia, Toshiba, Rambus and Sony.

As for Sony's arrogance, I think you're projecting. I have never seen Sony state that they think everyone will want to work on their system and the only ones I see "laughing at the PS3" are fanboys. Developers, in general, are either pleased, indifferent or they are griping that it is harder than they thought it would be.

I'm not implying that Sony made the Cell 'hard for hard sake', I'm a tech head at heart and I applaud innovation and taking risks as much as the next guy but...

...at the start of this generation Sony had all the developers, all the exclusives, they had a huge and I mean huge market share of the console market. Developers wanted to develop for the PS2 because of the massive install base. It was obvious with some of the statements Sony came out with at the time such as "next gen doesnt start until we say it does" that they firmly believed if they came out with a new standard everyone would follow suit. That was certainly my impression, now I have no proof that this was their general attitude but there is no doubt they were acting pretty arrogant 3 years ago. Then again, who wouldn't when you were unchallenged as they were with the PS2.

Since then Sony have released better developer tools and have took a much more pro-active approach to keeping developers interested in developing for the PS3. Companies like valve have took a pretty much dismissive attitude towards the PS3 along with other devs. It's not just fanboys who have taken a disliking to the PS3s hardware, some very notable industry figure-heads have also done so.

Whether you like what I am saying or not, in my opinion I firmly believe it was very arrogant of Sony to assume everyone would just follow them with their risk of using something as radically different as the Cell. What I'm saying is, they should have shown a little more humility and factored in ease of use, ease of development, development time and cost.

They assumed the developers would do all the hardwork in learning the tech. It was pretty arrogant in my opinion that they assumed everyone would jump from the mainstream to some entirely new like the Cell without considerable effort to make the jump more smooth. There is a lot they have done since though.

[QUOTE="savetehhaloz"]

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"] Not really...It means Sony sucks at making hardware with devs in mind. A console should be able to handle anything a dev throws at it. A dev shouldn't have to jump threw hoops to get something to work the way they want, when it can on any other platform. This is more of a weakness on the PS3's part, then the dev themself. Yeah, yeah, bring up all of the first party devs all you want, they have virtually unlimited time, and Sony's money to get it right. Most devs don't have that.jwsoul

Yeah sadly thats all correct.

On the other hand look at Microsoft the world leader of Software sales, hell look at PCs in general. They have the monopoly on software and because of that most people have used MS development tools on a more frequent basis.

It simple boils down to the fact that MS rule the world when it comes to software, why get a education in developing for a specific platform, when you can get an education in developing for the PC which also i assume covers the 360?

I think thats a pretty accurate assumption on my part, the only real difference between a PC game and a 360 one being i assume the hardware supporting it and the actual route that the game takes to utilize said hardware. Within a PS3 it is not only going to be different, it will most likely require a hole new software package and perspective to get to work correctly.

The 3 big console giants are in direct competition, but one of them holds the key to it all, the platform i assume all games if not most are created on.... Yeah Microsoft.

No, Microsoft are only responsible for the DX api. Games are developed to run on various hardware types through dx but the hardware is made by Nvidia, ATI, AMD, Intel etc. They also traditionally have supported open gl. The difference between the architect of a 360/PC vs PS3 is largely down to the Cell and how it is radically different to traditional cpu's. Developers are used to using parts of traditional cpu's that the cell lacks and are inexperienced in using the parts of the cell that traditional cpus lack. It's basically a hardware difference more than being used to using windows.

[QUOTE="MortalDecay"] I never said the PS3 had crappy hardware. But you have to question Sony on their choice of hardware. It's not economical from the developer stand point. Some have said they made it hard on purpose. They made it hard, so developers would spend all of their time learning the PS3, thus not having time to want to learn anything else. This is their arrogance at work, and it back fired, big time. Why make a game for the PS3, when you can make the same exact game, in less time, cheaper, and get better results on the 360? Think of it as a company you own. You just hired worker A, and worker B. Worker A get's his job done with no supervision, no matter what assignments you give him. Worker B is a little lazy. You have to keep getting on his case, to finish his job. He eventually finishes, but the quality of work isn't on par with worker A. Are you going to be proud of worker B? NO! You're going to fire him on the spot. PS3...I mean, worker B should have never been hired in the first place. :)asylumni

Gee, I can make analogies, too. PS 3 is like the hard teacher in school, where the 360 is the easy teacher. The hard teacher keeps pushing their students to be better and learn new things so the students will be able to greatly excel afterward, while the easy teacher lets the students coast on what they already know and only allows the students to just get by afterwords. The student with the hard teacher will be much better prepared, going forth, to deal with any changes to come.

Sorry but you've got it the wrong way round and moreover, it's kind of patronising to developers to assume they're the students and Sony are the teachers! Sony should treat they're developers as investors and should make the process easy and rewarding not a challenge. I mean Sony are not in control, forcing developers to jump through hoops only benefits the developers if they're developing for the PS3. Again, it's quite arrogant to assume that everyone wants to work on your platform, again its the attitude that what Sony do everyone will follow. Many developers are just laughing at the PS3 and saying 'whatever!' and just look to the many other successful platforms to develop on. Sony have learned that humilty towards the developers is just as important. When all is said and done, developers can just develop on other platforms but Sony cannot survive without developers wanting to work on their platform.

[QUOTE="NintendoSince83"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

Or Microsoft could just use BR...

SpruceCaboose