[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

so who's to blame for not bringing that type of physics based gameplay to the ps3?

no ones stopping them

i_am_interested

Exactly, so why don't they? If they stopped looking for ways to polish eye candy for 5 minutes; maybe they could consider doing something different.

who's "they" ? every licensed ps3 developer on the planet? or someone more specific? because i was referring to the people who made the game you posted

maybe stuff like that isnt being done because its not good gameplay design and maybe it got a 5.2 for a reason

exactly just because you can take a bunch of polygons and throw them all over the screen doesn't make a good game. It's a difference of theory and how games should be designed imo. Was Red FAction a good game because it was a physics demo? A physics demo doesn't make a good game. This wasn't meant to be a graphics thread btw. People hype up valve and portal but all it was was a glorified physics demo. Sure it was creative but still. IT is about game design. Annoyeddragon thinks the ps3 is just trying to pretty up their graphics when i see how they are incorporating different things to make fun gameplay. To be honest i've been disapointed with the 360 this gen. I can only take so many 1st person shooters. There isn't the creative design that there should be and games aren't being designed the way I'd like them to be. I will say as far as teh ps3 exclusives they've come the closest as far as producing games that incorporate a lot of different things and are pushing a different boundary as far as game design. The problem is there are only a handful of games that do this. If you want to get into hardware the wii doesn't push graphics but it's design as far as gaming is much more creative than anything microsoft has ever done as far as gaming is concerned.

Another graphics thread where : 1-its made by a console owner 2-includes PC 3-its wrong Someone should keep track of threads like these and reveal the numbers at the end of the week. Dante2710

where is it wrong? Please explain..... lol. I have a PC btw. I've been gaming for 30 years.

2. Can you even read the title of the thread?

I don't know where this became a graphics thread. But how is this an obsession with graphics? Read what I was saying again and the title of the thread. I said I love games and graphics are a part of that. Read my point because I'm actually not talking about graphics like you think. Graphics are only a part of that. I'm talking about games and what these processors can do to produce the best games. Ultimately games are what a processor can do to manipulate code to produce games. Yes it is about pushign graphics and what you can do with them. If we are talking strictly graphics then the 360 and pc have graphic cards that can push textures and environments to the screen. If we are talking strictly pushign textures the pc has much better gpu's to do that. The point I was trying to make was the ps3 can actually manipulate these graphics in different ways. MY point is the 360 architecture and PC architecture is not the best environment to produce games. A GPU pushes graphics.

This thread is so full of fail is baffiling. Look i love my 360 i like my PS3 but never out my mouth will the words Consoles have better graphics than PC just will not happen. EVER!!!!!!! This is sad people are here saying that Heavy Rain and Uncharted 2 have better graphics than ALL PC GAMES. Gears of War on PC has better graphics than Uncharted 2. Why are people even debating this like annoyeddragon said go back to your fantasy world.

Vipa37

And apparently you know everything. The PC isn't designed strictly for gaming. Do you even understand computer architecture? Just wondering because you might be living in a fantasy world and don't even realize it.

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"]

You're right, Moore's Law doesn't have anything to do with performance. But if you don't think that performance isn't related to transistor count, then I don't know what to say. The only reason I brought up Moore's Law is just to point out that anyone who thinks that a 5 year old processor is still the "best" processor doesn't understand how quickly hardware moves forward.

Teufelhuhn

i had a commodore amiga once. The pc came out and took the world by storm. Yes it did some things better, but 10 years later the pc still couldnt do certain things the amiga was doing 10 years earlier. It's not as simple as saying performance doubles. The people designing these chips are designing them a certain way. That doesn't mean there are certain things that were done 30 years ago that aren't even being done today. That were better in certain regards. That also doesn't mean better things can't be done. If you want to ride the coatails of M$ and Intel and IBM say every chip is the best possible chip that can be designed then sure. but the fact is the cell and 360 chips were designed by the same people and have different architectures. It's as simple as that.

That sure is some flamebait title. And the Cell is unnecessary to gaming, it is essentially a cpu-gpu hybrid with less hardware features, and with the severe RAM limitations of the PS3 it will never reach its full potential. Beside IBM tested it with benchmark and found that only a high 7x% of the theoritical GFLOPS can be attained and it was very difficult to subtain that state. (too lazy to look the link up, google it)

In 2004-2005, it was indeed something quite unique. However, electronic hardware advances way too fast for the life span of a console. Today, any CPU/GPU combo of a standard computer can smoke it.

Sony was going to use a dual Cell at first, but it was too alienating to devs. It was, and still is, too complicated for it's worth, just like the Emotion Engine of the PS2. CPU-GPU hybrid chips aren't doing well either, Intel scrapped the Larrabee and IBM jumped ship from the Cell architecture as well, abandoning research for its succesors, all because of poor performance and the overcomplicated architecture compared to the GPU with hardware dedicated functions.

It is clear that the Cell is not the "best" for gaming. Hell it isn't even needed. The PS3 also probably has the worst version of it plus they disabled one of the 8 SPEs to increase chip yield. Bottlenecks and RAM issues doesn't even allow it to perform at full strenght. The only note worthy function is to encrypt the OS files to prevent piracy.

You can argue how the Cell can offload some task from the RSX, and how it is superior to the Xenos. That is true, but the 360 can do that as well with its CPU. Devs simply didn't because the 360 has a GPU ahead of its time that doesn't need help. Clearly Sony is just forcing the Cell's usage by putting a gimped 7800. If the PS3 had a simple Pentium 4 as CPU but a 8800 Ultra(they were available about as the same time as the PS3 launch anyway) as GPU it would definitely be able to push superior visuals compared to the 360 and probably save some money. Basically, the Cell has failed and Sony just wasted billions on it. It went down with Crazy Ken and Sony's arrogance. (no the PS3 did not fail :P)

RavenLoud

This is the problem with some people is they can throw out technical specs when they don't even understand simple concepts what a processor can and can't do and why it's designed that way and why this gen is shaping up the way it is and how it can be applied... Just do what you are told lol.... I explained why. Read my last two followup posts.

Take Halo Reach for example. REally look at that footage. IT's rendering beautifully but really look at how much is going on on screen as far as the amount of enemies and special effects going on. It looks dead to me in certain ways. Mass Effect 2 is the same thing. The action sequencies are very nice and the artistic style is very nice, but the levels are very scripted.

now compare that to god of war or uncharted. Different design. Two games designed for different platforms and architecture. IT's not pushing the same textures in the same way but look at the amount of stuff going on as far as special effects and sound processing and the way it's rendering player animation.

The point is you can push an amazing amount of graphics tot he screen with multiple general purpose processors and a powerful gpu(ie the 360 and pc), but you can't do as much with those graphics(the cell which has spe's coupled with blu-ray that has more ability to manipulate those graphics). Two different architectures with different strengths and weaknesses. I'm talking from a pure gaming perspective here.

it's similar to the risc vs cisc argument when talking about the cell vs general purpose. IT's the same argument argument all over. Yes all these processors are risc these days, but it's a different design. The Cell is different design than most pc processors and the 360. Read what i said again because you can assign various tasks to the spe's without putting pressure on the cpu which is an advantage. Yes having a general purpose processor and a powerful gpu has its own advantages as far as pushing textures, but like i said i'm talking about the little details and you can see it if you look at it. I really believe the cells architecture is best for gaming. Yes it needs to be designed for. No it's not the best of both worlds. Teh cell is limited as far as the textures it can push on a grand scale and bottlenecks when pushing a lot of graphics but the spe's have their advantages. Each ultimately has their advantes but as far as gaming and the little things that make a game the cell can do things these other processors can't. It's very noticeable to me.

I think mlb 2k10 vs the show is a perfect example as far as the way players animate and the crowds and the working scoreboards and video that is being processed. blu-ray also has something to do with that, but the spe's are also processing that. the spe's can process sound and video on their own and do physics calculations without putting everything on the cpu and that's the point.

if you had the cells architecture with more bandwith and a great gpu that would be the best of all worlds but there is a cost factor involved obviously.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]I could delve into the PC here as well, but I think the ps3 has set the bar as far as the graphics king with Uncharted 2 and HEavy Rain so far PC includedVelocitas8

Sure, those games look great..but "graphics king?" You're delusional.

resolution and sharpness, lighting etc doesn't make a graphics king. I'm talking about the amount of stuff going on on screen and detail. There is nothing that compares ont he pc as far as realistic player models and lifelike animationt o heavy rain. Or special effects of uncharted. Yes the pc can do the basics but it's a different architecture. The ps3 was designed for gaming is my point. Some people said it wasn't. But the fact mlb2k10 struggles with framerates and if you look at the stadiums and scoreboards and amount of actual processing going on there is a difference. the 360 can't process live scoreboards at the same time or the amount of detail as far as player models. This is the advantage of the spe's being able to process this stuff without putting weight on the cpu. GEneral purpose processing vs having specific microprocessors for certain tasks.

My point is a game like Crysis where you are pushing a 1st person shooter can look very impressive with general purpose processing but it's a different architecture and design. Get Crysis doing 20 things at once and tell me it won't choke. The same can be said for the ps3 when trying to do something like Crysis so it goes both ways. General purpose and a powerful GPU vs SPE's... Yes you can push better textures with a better gpu but you can't do as much with those textures.

This hasn't been brought up in a while but I thought i would since these systems are now maxing some of their potential. I'd also like to state I have a 360 so this is pretty unbiased, although I'm considering getting a ps3. I'm not that petty anyways trust me. I just love games. Part of that is graphics.

The ps3 has a list of games that show off it's graphical prowess

These are probably top of the heap

Uncharted 2

HEavy Rain

Killzone 2

MLB The Show

MGSIV

God of War coming

The 360 on the other hand has some very nice looking games

This is probably as good as it gets on the 360

ME2

Alan Wake Coming

Halo Reach

Gears of War

Forza 3

-I think Grand Turismo will surpass Forza 3 as the best looking racer around. If you look at a game like MLB 2k10 it doesnt really compare to the show graphically.

All in all what we heard coming into this gen has been pretty much true. The 360 is easier to develop for. Most multiplats and PC ports and the cost of development has favored the 360. But I do think the ps3 has shown it can do more and is capable of some really impressive stuff, if people take the time.

Overall games on the 360 look great and there isn't a huge different but if you really look into the details and what is going on on screen there is a difference. Take heavy rain for example. The way this game is rendering is pretty amazing. Splinter cell on the 360 looks fantastic. So does ME2 but if you really delve into what is going on from a technical perspective the small details are where it's at.

I could delve into the PC here as well, but I think the ps3 has set the bar as far as the graphics king with Uncharted 2 and HEavy Rain so far PC included. When Sony marketed their system they marketed it as being the most powerful and it appears as if they will achieve that.