• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

lupinko
Member
(01-27-2008, 10:30 AM)
lupinko's Avatar

Originally Posted by MikeB

@ WrikaWrek

I was just trying to lure the dev into producing some comments. :lol

"Infinity Ward studio head Vince Zampella has bellowed. He's been explaining why Sony's edition has a bigger online capacity (24 max players vs 360's 18) and, according to those with cyborg-eyes, improved visuals." (Source: CVG)

?

I thought the PS3 had the same number of players as the 360 version, which was 18, that's what all the talk was about when the game was nearing release.

I've only played the PC version btw.
MikeB
Banned
(01-27-2008, 10:48 AM)

Originally Posted by lupinko

?

I thought the PS3 had the same number of players as the 360 version, which was 18, that's what all the talk was about when the game was nearing release.

I've only played the PC version btw.

They decided to release this game near equal for both platforms in this regard. Maybe they were afraid of upsetting some people if both version aren't near identical. Maybe a good commercial choice, consindering both versions sell like hotcakes.

With exclusive games like Resistance 2 or Halo 3, there are no such issues to take into consideration.
Xun
Member
(01-27-2008, 10:59 AM)
Xun's Avatar
It sure would be interesting to see games maxed out on both systems, but the sad truth is that'll never happen.

Also, perhaps I'm going nuts, but wasn't Gears supposed to be running on one core?
filopilo
Member
(01-27-2008, 11:01 AM)

Gears is one of the best looking games out there still, and for me in some ways Gears does look better than AC and COD4.

Will you people learn one day that looking good and being technicaly advanced are much less related than you would want to think ?

Gears is a small corridor with mostly static stuff (lighting and physics) and very repetitive instanced shading parterns.

Only Epic knows how to make UE3 shine ,because they don't even try to make thing it would suffer a lot doing.

Compared to COD4 engine ,or AC engine or Uncharted ungine ,UE3 is just and old grandmother with bad hurting bones , but face-lifted with some talent when it's Epic themself that take care of her. (Some stuf from 6 feet under just crossed my mind)
MikeB
Banned
(01-27-2008, 11:04 AM)

Originally Posted by Xun

It sure would be interesting to see games maxed out on both systems, but the sad truth is that'll never happen.

Also, perhaps I'm going nuts, but wasn't Gears supposed to be running on one core?

No, uses all three CPU cores, Epic even claimed to have pushed the 360 to its absolute max at the time of release. Epic explained the fact that their engine was already multi-threaded on the 360, this was an advantage for moving stuff over to the Cell's SPEs for UT3.
wolforce
Member
(01-27-2008, 04:17 PM)
From the insomniac site about Resistance 1:

SPU System:

Animation
Audio (NextSynth and LR1)
Bucketer sort
Collision (separate broad and narrow)
Dynamic DB
Dynamic joint
FX update
Geom Cull Clip (for shadows and decals)
Glass
Moby constants
Physics collision
Physics simulation
Particle (weather fx)
Render mats
Static DB
Water (FFT)

10-20% total SPU utilization


http://www.insomniacgames.com/tech/a...ing_public.pdf
Last edited by wolforce; 01-27-2008 at 04:21 PM.
MikeB
Banned
(01-27-2008, 04:50 PM)
@ wolforce

Thanks, good find. Added to the OP.
wolforce
Member
(01-27-2008, 05:10 PM)

Originally Posted by MikeB

@ wolforce

Thanks, good find. Added to the OP.

Please, this is a very interesting discussion.
McValdemar
Xbot Defense Force:
Potato-peeling Private
(01-28-2008, 07:48 AM)
McValdemar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Merovingian

I don't understand how Devs max out the 360, using all of the 3 cores, but they are able to make the game run on the Ps3 using only 1 core that is underpowered in comparison to 1 of the 3 of the 360.

It's so weird.

Unless the "We don't use the SPEs" doesn't mean "The spes are just idle" and instead it means "We don't optimize properly for the SPEs, but still they are running code".

I have a hard time believing that the SPEs aren't doing anything, sorry, sounds bogus.

I absolutely agree.
cedric69
Member
(01-28-2008, 08:07 AM)

Originally Posted by MikeB

No, uses all three CPU cores, Epic even claimed to have pushed the 360 to its absolute max at the time of release.

Believing a claim like this, from any developer, after less than one year from any system launch is downright dumb.
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 08:31 AM)

Originally Posted by McValdemar

I absolutely agree.

Basically many of the early XBox 360 games used just one core, Gears was one of the first (if not the first) 360 game to use all three cores. Epic is usually a step ahead of competitors using their engine.

The GPU/CPU on the 360 shares bandwidth for the system RAM, the XDR RAM inside the PS3 is faster/provides far more bandwidth and offers lower latencies (something of importance to CPUs but less relevant to GPUs), the Xenon cores share their L2 cache making them less powerful than for example a PC CPU setup where each core has its own dedicated L2 cache (more bandwidth), on the PS3 the PPE (in mature engines could solely serve as a traffic cop or manager processor) has its dedicated L2 cache and all SPEs have their own dedicated local memory stores which are as fast as cache but operate as fully dedicated system memory (look at the SPEs as 'systems on a chip'), each SPE can function as a fully independent processor. Basically there's less of an advantage going multi-core on the 360 than there is potential with regard to using the Cell's SPEs.

But the 360's most profound bottlenecks is not really its far less interesting CPU setup, the system was fully designed with using the Xenos' daughter chip EDRAM in mind, great if not for the fact that this memory is too small for operating to its potential in combination with high resolutions. And DVD is another important limitation to take into account (usually devs would rather make sacrifices than going multi-DVD for most games).
Last edited by MikeB; 01-28-2008 at 05:16 PM.
wazoo
Member
(01-28-2008, 08:36 AM)
wazoo's Avatar

Originally Posted by MikeB

Basically many of the early XBox 360 games used just one core, Gears was on of the first (if not the first) 360 game to use all three cores. Epic is usually a step ahead of competitors using their engine.

Kameo and PGR3 were both launch games and were both using the 3 cores (Kameo had 6 threads running and PGR3 5)
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 08:40 AM)

Originally Posted by cedric69

Believing a claim like this, from any developer, after less than one year from any system launch is downright dumb.

I learned to take Epic's claims with a grain of salt. ;-)

But it's far easier to get the most out of the 360 early on while adapting legacy game engines for the platform.
Last edited by MikeB; 01-28-2008 at 10:50 AM.
ymmv
Knows some attractive teenage boys
(01-28-2008, 08:42 AM)
ymmv's Avatar

Originally Posted by wazoo

Kameo and PGR3 were both launch games and were both using the 3 cores (Kameo had 6 threads running and PGR3 5)

There were plenty of cheap PC-ports that only used one core but there were exceptions of course. That's why MikeB said "many", not "all".
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 08:45 AM)

Originally Posted by wazoo

Kameo and PGR3 were both launch games and were both using the 3 cores (Kameo had 6 threads running and PGR3 5)

Interesting, can you provide some sources? Me and my girlfriend loved Kameo, although the game lacked AA some parts of this game looked truly astonishing! PGR3 provided nothing to write home about for me though.
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 12:02 PM)
In this thread I talked a little about the XBox 360's desgin being built around EDRAM utilization, this imposing bottlenecks for dealing with high resolutions.

I also talked about how on the PS3 it's possible for the GPU to use XDR memory to increase texture memory as well as texture bandwidth if needed and earlier I talked about how texture streaming can improve things as well, relevant to this here's an older Insonmiac quote with regard to texture streaming regarding to Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction:

"Ratchet & Clank on the PS3 uses texture streaming which allows us to get about 150 MB of extra VRAM in each level. This allows for much higher resolution textures than we used in Resistance, as well as more texture variety."

http://www.videogamer.com/ps3/ratche...news-6901.html

Obviously Blu-Ray disc provides benefits with regard to heavily streaming games engines (mainly 7.1 audio and high resolution textures), there's far more storage space available on mutli-layer / single-layer Blu-Ray discs (the amount of data that can be streamed). The constant read speed of Blu-Ray disc is an advantage, a great benefit in this regard and makes this far more predictable for games developers, this constant reading speed is also faster than the average reading speed available to dual-layer 360 DVDs (to simplify development, devs may even use worst case scenarios for determining how much data will be streamed at any time). On the PS3 with regard to reading speed critical data, devs can even assume the availability of a harddrive for any PS3 configuration.

IMO it's really sad the inclusion of a Blu-Ray drive received so much criticism, sure it contributed to added cost (which Sony seems to pay itself, considering all the parts in the PS3 are really of excellent quality), but the long term advantages are enormous as well as early advantages like having no disc scratching whatsoever to worry about and the PS3 producting far less noise than 360s. Blu-Ray movie playback out of the box should IMO be looked at as a nice added bonus for those interested, but with regard to gaming it's also an important aspect to how the PS3 distinguishes itself with regard to long term potential compared to the 360.
Last edited by MikeB; 01-28-2008 at 05:12 PM.
FirewalkR
Member
(01-28-2008, 12:14 PM)
FirewalkR's Avatar

Originally Posted by MikeB

No, uses all three CPU cores, Epic even claimed to have pushed the 360 to its absolute max at the time of release.

I believe Rare will push it way harder and we'll start seeing some results next month, probably at GDC. Can't wait. :)
wazoo
Member
(01-28-2008, 12:28 PM)
wazoo's Avatar

Originally Posted by MikeB

Interesting, can you provide some sources? Me and my girlfriend loved Kameo, although the game lacked AA some parts of this game looked truly astonishing! PGR3 provided nothing to write home about for me though.

You can get the facts from Beyond 3D forums. It was posted a long time ago.

Fact is that those two games were only using one thread for graphics. The X360 has 3 cores, on each core, you can run one big thread and one "less important", so only one of this big thread was for graphics, then you get the threads for decompressing from DVD, sound, etc

I do not know about GeoW, but DR/LP has a graphic engine (MT framework) that runs over the three cores.
wotter
Member
(01-28-2008, 12:44 PM)
wotter's Avatar

Originally Posted by MikeB

Interesting, can you provide some sources?

Link to ppt:
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...iple_Cores.ppt
filopilo
Member
(01-28-2008, 12:52 PM)

Originally Posted by wolforce

From the insomniac site about Resistance 1:

SPU System:


10-20% total SPU utilization



http://www.insomniacgames.com/tech/a...ing_public.pdf

one spu not used at all.only 5 were used.
wolforce
Member
(01-28-2008, 12:52 PM)

Originally Posted by MikeB


"Ratchet & Clank on the PS3 uses texture streaming which allows us to get about 150 MB of extra VRAM in each level. This allows for much higher resolution textures than we used in Resistance, as well as more texture variety."


In another interview the chief creative of insomniac has said that in the engine of resistance 2 beyond the texture streaming there will be the streaming geometry and audio:

"Starting with Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction we are supporting texture streaming, which will make the worlds look even better, and will also consume even more space on disc," wrote Brian Hastings, Insomniac's chief creative officer. "With streamed textures, streamed geometry and streamed audio, even with compression, you can quickly approach 1GB of data per level."

http://www.psu.com/PSU--Evolution-of...0002553-p0.php

With this technique in the new engine we will have a more huge and complex levels and more hi-def. textures, exceeding the limit of 512Mb of the console.
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 01:02 PM)

Originally Posted by wazoo

You can get the facts from Beyond 3D forums. It was posted a long time ago.

I wouldn't consider everything stated on Beyond 3D factual, everyone can sign up for the forum. But there are certainly some very interesting and competent devs posting there (sadly some things appear to be covered by NDAs).

@ wotter

Interesting article, it states:

Kameo:

"Total usage ~2.2-2.5 cores"

- Game update
- File I/O
- Rendering
- XAudio
- File decompression

PGR3:

"Total usage ~2.0-3.0 cores"

- Update, physics, rendering, UI
- Audio update, networking
- Crowd update, texture decompression
- Texture decompression
- Xaudio

Doesn't sound like there's a lot of headroom for the CPU though.
Last edited by MikeB; 01-28-2008 at 01:07 PM.
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 01:17 PM)

Originally Posted by filopilo

one spu not used at all.only 5 were used.

Now added to the OP:

10-20% total SPU utilization" (Game uses 5 SPEs)

Shogmaster
Not genuinely interested in rational debate.
(01-28-2008, 01:41 PM)
Shogmaster's Avatar
5 SPUs is the max used because apparently, the 3rd SPU being "on call" by the OS rumor is true.

http://www.insomniacgames.com/tech/a...ing_public.pdf

They lay it out right there in that presentation for the upcoming GDC (page 31):

"2 Raw mode SPUs

* One SPU running broad collision
* One SPU running narrow collision

3 [Job Manager] SPUs

* In a thread group running SPURS

1 Unused

* This one is for the OS to steal for the AC3 Encoder etc.
"

From a thread @ B3D, via that other place.
3rdman
Member
(01-28-2008, 01:48 PM)

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

5 SPUs is the max used because apparently, the 3rd SPU being "on call" by the OS rumor is true.

http://www.insomniacgames.com/tech/a...ing_public.pdf

They lay it out right there in that presentation for the upcoming GDC (page 31):

"2 Raw mode SPUs

* One SPU running broad collision
* One SPU running narrow collision

3 [Job Manager] SPUs

* In a thread group running SPURS

1 Unused !

* This one is for the OS to steal for the AC3 Encoder etc.
"

From a thread @ B3D, via that other place.

Thats right in line with what we've heard from other devs...SPUs are needed for collision detection to get decent performance out of RSX.
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 01:53 PM)

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

5 SPUs is the max used because apparently, the 3rd SPU being "on call" by the OS rumor is true.

Yes, the article states:

"This is for the OS to steal for AC3 Encode etc"

"This should be used with its own job manager instance in the
future for jobs that donít mind getting interrupted by the OS"

Hhm, wonder what more Sony has up its sleeve for their OS.
Shogmaster
Not genuinely interested in rational debate.
(01-28-2008, 02:00 PM)
Shogmaster's Avatar

Originally Posted by 3rdman

Thats right in line with what we've heard from other devs...SPUs are needed for collision detection to get decent performance out of RSX.

OK, so in that scenario:

Code:

       360                        PS3

      Core 0 <------------------> PPE
      Core 1 <------------------> SPU0
      Core 2 <------------------> SPU1
      Xenos  <------------------> SPU2 + SPU3 + RSX
                                  SPU4
                                  SPU5 (on call)
                                  SPU6 (OS)
                                  SPU7 (lost to yield)
Hey, that's a one SPU advantage! ;)
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
(01-28-2008, 02:02 PM)
drakesfortune's Avatar

Originally Posted by filopilo


Compared to COD4 engine ,or AC engine or Uncharted ungine ,UE3 is just and old grandmother with bad hurting bones , but face-lifted with some talent when it's Epic themself that take care of her. (Some stuf from 6 feet under just crossed my mind)

I really don't get all of the COD4 love. It looks very good, and it runs incredibly smoothly, and is a very good game, but when I compare it to Uncharted and everything going on in Uncharted from incredibly detailed textures to the best lighting and shadows on a console, to the amazing animations, the water, the two games seem almost a generation apart. I bought COD4 and Uncharted at roughly the same time so I was playing through them at the same time, and while there are some good looking things going on at 60fps, it was just a much lower rez which was emphasized by playing both games at the same time. The only thing I wish they would have fixed with Uncharted was the screen tearing. That said, even with screen tearing it's still the best looking game on a console hands down.

I think the COD4 engine is a good model for future multiplatform engines, but if that's the best they can do with a multiplatform engine then I think that first party games are going to have drastic differences in quality when it comes to graphics, and what's going on with physics and lighting. All of which impact game play.
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 02:09 PM)
@ Shogmaster

That's of course a wrong assumption, for instance the 360's OS uses up CPU cycles as well (divided over 1 or more cores).

It's true that the RSX + SPE tasks makes the RSX more efficient (one of the GPU design goals) and the Cell + RSX combined offer far more graphics and complexity potential, but basically the RSX can perform more shader ops per second than the Xenos can to begin with.

Then you will have to factor in all the other distinguishing factors like memory usage and system bandwidth.
Last edited by MikeB; 01-28-2008 at 02:14 PM.
gofreak
GAF's Bob Woodward
(01-28-2008, 02:10 PM)
gofreak's Avatar

Originally Posted by 3rdman

Thats right in line with what we've heard from other devs...SPUs are needed for collision detection to get decent performance out of RSX.

That statement doesn't even make sense. Collision detection is done on the CPU, it's not a render task (though as with all things, GPGPU efforts have put collision detection implementations on shaders). I think you're confusing collision detection with culling or other "render help" - things that Insomniac and others who've produced great visuals on PS3 have not used Cell for.

(So really, Shog, it would be a three and a bit SPU advantage :p)
Last edited by gofreak; 01-28-2008 at 02:26 PM.
antiloop
Member
(01-28-2008, 02:14 PM)

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

OK, so in that scenario:

Code:

       360                        PS3

      Core 0 <------------------> PPE
      Core 1 <------------------> SPU0
      Core 2 <------------------> SPU1
      Xenos  <------------------> SPU2 + SPU3 + RSX
                                  SPU4
                                  SPU5 (on call)
                                  SPU6 (OS)
                                  SPU7 (lost to yield)
Hey, that's a one SPU advantage! ;)

Though, as stated in the PDF they can still use the "on call" SPU with it's own job manager for low prio stuff.
Shogmaster
Not genuinely interested in rational debate.
(01-28-2008, 02:16 PM)
Shogmaster's Avatar

Originally Posted by MikeB

@ Shogmaster

That's of course a wrong assumption, for instance the 360's OS uses up CPU cycles as well (divided over 1 or more cores).

It's true that the RSX + SPE tasks makes the RSX far more efficient and the Cell + RSX combined offer far more graphics and complexity potential, but basically the RSX can perform more shader ops per second than the Xenos can to begin with.

Then you will have to factor in all the other distinguishing factors like memory usage and system bandwidth.

You can keep believing all that but soon or later you have to come to the conclusion that it can't be accurate when you look at the fact that EVERY SINGLE MULTIPLAT GAME HAS NOT SHOWN IT. No where has a multiplat game shown higher frame rate, or higher resolution along with AA, or better shaders overall on the PS3.

So either every single multiplatform dev are a bunch of incompetent lazy douchebags, or your assumption might be false. I really don't think option A is very logical.


Originally Posted by antiloop

Though, as stated in the PDF they can still use the "on call" SPU with it's own job manager for low prio stuff.

I didn't even count the 2 thread nature of the Xenon cores. So let's not get too picky about that really simple (and mostly a joke) of a comparison.
Durante
I'm taking it FROM here, so says Mr. Stewart
(01-28-2008, 02:26 PM)
Durante's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

You can keep believing all that but soon or later you have to come to the conclusion that it can't be accurate when you look at the fact that EVERY SINGLE MULTIPLAT GAME HAS NOT SHOWN IT. No where has a multiplat game shown higher frame rate, or higher resolution along with AA, or better shaders overall on the PS3.

So either every single multiplatform dev are a bunch of incompetent lazy douchebags, or your assumption might be false. I really don't think option A is very logical.

That's a false dichotomy: the difference is most likely caused by framebuffer bandwidth and not shader ops, something which people familiar with rendering have expected from the beginning...

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

I didn't even count the 2 thread nature of the Xenon cores.

Why would you? "Hyperthreading" maybe has a potential 20% performance gain in near-ideal cases, as opposed to 100% for 2 cores.
bluheim
Banned
(01-28-2008, 02:27 PM)

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

You can keep believing all that but soon or later you have to come to the conclusion that it can't be accurate when you look at the fact that EVERY SINGLE MULTIPLAT GAME HAS NOT SHOWN IT. No where has a multiplat game shown higher frame rate, or higher resolution along with AA, or better shaders overall on the PS3.

So either every single multiplatform dev are a bunch of incompetent lazy douchebags, or your assumption might be false. I really don't think option A is very logical.

What about exclusive games ? Uncharted ?
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 02:28 PM)

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

You can keep believing all that but soon or later you have to come to the conclusion that it can't be accurate when you look at the fact that EVERY SINGLE MULTIPLAT GAME HAS NOT SHOWN IT. No where has a multiplat game shown higher frame rate, or higher resolution along with AA, or better shaders overall on the PS3.

The most impressive multi-platform games, IMO Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty 4, are as good as identical already. However multi-platform developers will have to take into account cross-platform strenghts and weaknesses, thus exclusive developers can be expected to push the PS3 much further.

There are some significant differences between the two platforms and just like various early Atari ST to Amiga ports actually were running better on the ST. Also for example developers always experienced difficulties porting DirectX based games to other platforms. I know some developers who have told about a lot of the ordeals they had to go through (porting to Mac, Linux and Amiga), this mostly had nothing to do with actual system specs but rather with DirectX.

Please don't get upset, state your arguments and remain cool.
Last edited by MikeB; 01-28-2008 at 02:31 PM.
Shogmaster
Not genuinely interested in rational debate.
(01-28-2008, 02:33 PM)
Shogmaster's Avatar

Originally Posted by Durante

That's a false dichotomy: the difference is most likely caused by framebuffer bandwidth and not shader ops, something which people familiar with rendering have expected from the beginning...

To that, I have to say: Does it matter why the results are the way they are? Or, if you can't utilize the superior pixel shader capability due to some other bottleneck, does it really matter in the end?

The fact remains, after a year of release, No 3rd party multi-platform game released around similar period has shown advantage on the PS3. You can cry bad devs and unused potential all you want, but the clock is ticking and we still don't have the "superiority" of the PS3 becoming evident. If by this time next year, the situation is the same with the 3rd party games, everyone should shut the hell up about "unused potential" and accept the fact that 360 and PS3 are about the same in power.

Originally Posted by bluheim

What about exclusive games ? Uncharted ?

Who gives a crap about exclusives when comparing power? It's a fool's errand.
Durante
I'm taking it FROM here, so says Mr. Stewart
(01-28-2008, 02:36 PM)
Durante's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

The fact remains, after a year of release, No 3rd party multi-platform game released around similar period has shown advantage on the PS3. You can cry bad devs and unused potential all you want, but the clock is ticking and we still don't have the "superiority" of the PS3 becoming evident. If by this time next year, the situation is the same with the 3rd party games, everyone should shut the hell up about "unused potential" and accept the fact that 360 and PS3 are about the same in power.

Why would you expect the superiority to become evident in multi-platform titles (beyond not sounding like a 747)? Only exclusives get to play toward the strength of each respective platform in a meaningful way.

(FWIW, I currently own a 360 and not yet a PS3. But with my HPC background I find it hard to argue that the PS3 is not superior, even if some of MikeB's more outrageous claims make me laugh)
SolidSnakex
Member
(01-28-2008, 02:37 PM)
SolidSnakex's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

Who gives a crap about exclusives when comparing power? It's a fool's errand.

Because those are the games that truly will tap into the power of a system. No multiplatform game is on the level of Uncharted, GT5P ect. And that's because they can't focus on actually getting the best out of the system. It's no different from any other generation. People weren't looking toward multiplatform games last gen as an example of what's the best that could be done on a system and there's no reason why that should start now.
bluheim
Banned
(01-28-2008, 02:39 PM)

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

Who gives a crap about exclusives when comparing power? It's a fool's errand.

Well, I think that comparing multiplat games is not fair to the system that is not the lead system. Exclusives use each system way better than any ports, and so they are much more accurate to compare systems. Right now, I've still to witness a 360 game that have greater textures, shaders, lighting system and animations than Uncharted. Even the AA is absolutely perfect.
Shogmaster
Not genuinely interested in rational debate.
(01-28-2008, 02:40 PM)
Shogmaster's Avatar

Originally Posted by Durante

Why would you expect the superiority to become evident in multi-platform titles (beyond not sounding like a 747)? Only exclusives get to play toward the strength of each respective platform in a meaningful way.

So you've devised a way to compare apples and oranges, huh? Again, this is fool's errand. We can't even logically separate how much art vs tech is responsible for a title's look for fuck sakes...
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 02:42 PM)

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

The fact remains, after a year of release, No 3rd party multi-platform game released around similar period has shown advantage on the PS3. You can cry bad devs and unused potential all you want, but the clock is ticking and we still don't have the "superiority" of the PS3 becoming evident. If by this time next year, the situation is the same with the 3rd party games, everyone should shut the hell up about "unused potential" and accept the fact that 360 and PS3 are about the same in power.

"The Darkness" devs:

"It depends on the type of engine you are doing. In The Darkness they have pretty similar performance, but that is very intentional from our side. We need the two platforms to perform similarly, and therefore we canít design features that would take advantage of the difference of the two platforms. To my knowledge the PS3 has untapped potential in its seven SPUs"

Your answer lies within, don't expect devs to go far beyond the 360's capabilities for most multi-platform games. Maybe in some cases for specific games, like maybe PC ports where the 360's capabilities result into too many sacrifices you can expect significant PS3 specific enhancements in some cases. But if the game does everything as expected on the 360, IMO don't expect devs devoting many resources into creating a vastly superior PS3 version.
Durante
I'm taking it FROM here, so says Mr. Stewart
(01-28-2008, 02:43 PM)
Durante's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

So you've devised a way to compare apples and oranges, huh? Again, this is fool's errand.

I think it's perfectly possible to compare what 2 games do -- if you do so on a technical and not an emotional level. The hard part is judging how well each uses its respective hardware, but that will become easier as the generation progresses and developer familiarity increases.
gofreak
GAF's Bob Woodward
(01-28-2008, 02:50 PM)
gofreak's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

So you've devised a way to compare apples and oranges, huh? Again, this is fool's errand. We can't even logically separate how much art vs tech is responsible for a title's look for fuck sakes...

You're right, all we can do is decide for ourselves if one different title is better looking or more technically impressive, than another different title.

Multiplatform games don't get us any closer to a satisfactory point of comaprison though - because they typically do not illustrate the extent of a system's power. Conclusions or presumptions that might be drawn on the basis of multiplatform games can often easily be proven or disproven by platform exclusives. That's certainly the case with PS3 so far. It's all well and good to say that a certain team, carrying a certain level of exertise and experience, at a certain time, produced better results on one system versus another. But it doesn't reflect on the machine's techinical capability to produce better looking/more impressive/whatever games if some other team is running rings around them.

The best illustrations of a machine's potential - and thus the truest - are often in its exclusives. That sucks for comparisons, but so be it.
Shogmaster
Not genuinely interested in rational debate.
(01-28-2008, 02:50 PM)
Shogmaster's Avatar

Originally Posted by MikeB

"The Darkness" devs:

"It depends on the type of engine you are doing. In The Darkness they have pretty similar performance, but that is very intentional from our side. We need the two platforms to perform similarly, and therefore we canít design features that would take advantage of the difference of the two platforms. To my knowledge the PS3 has untapped potential in its seven SPUs"

Your answer lies within, don't expect devs to go far beyond the 360's capabilities for most multi-platform games. Maybe in some cases for specific games, like maybe PC ports where the 360's capabilities result into too many sacrifices you can expect significant PS3 specific enhancements in some cases. But if the game does everything as expected on the 360, IMO don't expect devs devoting many resources into creating a vastly superior PS3 version.

THE DARKNESS?!? You chose the Darkness to make your point? The same Darkness that had the PS3 version running way lower resolution and shittier framerate? If the "similar performance" *snicker* was "intentional" on their part, then it's was the 360 that was artificially capped, not the PS3! :lol

Dude, just quit while you're still got your head above water. Move on. it's not 2005 and PS3 is not twice as powerful as 360. It's 2008 and the evidence has shown OVER and OVER and OVER that they are about the same.

Seriously guys. It's well past looking pathetic, trying to prove this none-existent superiority.
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 02:57 PM)

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

Seriously guys. It's well past looking pathetic, trying to prove this none-existent superiority.

Please stay calm and polite. What the comment shows is that games are intentionally being designed to run the same on both platforms.

The comment wasn't intented to claim the Darkness is technically superior to other multi-platform games like Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty 4, Devil May Cry 4, GTA IV, etc.
gofreak
GAF's Bob Woodward
(01-28-2008, 02:57 PM)
gofreak's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

Move on. it's not 2005

Indeed, but dude, you've also been making some fairly "2005" comparisons above - as in, misleading, overly simplistic point-to-point comparisons based on a mixup between culling and collision detection.. ;) That seems very 2005 to me.

Look, this thread isn't really meant to be about 360 comparisons. We've tracked over that ground and the issues involved many times. Nothing in the Insomniac PDF, which was the latest contribution to the thread, really sheds any new light on the matter. It sheds light on other things that may be relevant to the topic, but not that.
Tormentoso
Banned
(01-28-2008, 02:59 PM)

Originally Posted by Shogmaster

You can keep believing all that but soon or later you have to come to the conclusion that it can't be accurate when you look at the fact that EVERY SINGLE MULTIPLAT GAME HAS NOT SHOWN IT. No where has a multiplat game shown higher frame rate, or higher resolution along with AA, or better shaders overall on the PS3.

So either every single multiplatform dev are a bunch of incompetent lazy douchebags, or your assumption might be false. I really don't think option A is very logical.




I didn't even count the 2 thread nature of the Xenon cores. So let's not get too picky about that really simple (and mostly a joke) of a comparison.



My friend last gen multi platform games show little improvement on the xbox and was more powerful than the PS2,multi platform games are not the best meter to show how powerful a console is over another.,in house the PS3 is been push further i think and i also think it has more room for improvement.
WrikaWrek
Banned
(01-28-2008, 02:59 PM)
WrikaWrek's Avatar
Shog just stop it....

MikeB is a "Ps3 untapped potential and 360 lol that shit has nowhere to go from here" fanatic.

Why bother with fanatics?
Shogmaster
Not genuinely interested in rational debate.
(01-28-2008, 03:01 PM)
Shogmaster's Avatar

Originally Posted by WrikaWrek

Shog just stop it....

MikeB is a "Ps3 untapped potential and 360 lol that shit has nowhere to go from here" fanatic.

Why bother with fanatics?

You're absolutely right of course. It was early in the morning and I had lost my head for a moment. Continue on with this glorious thread fellas. I'm outty.
MikeB
Banned
(01-28-2008, 03:08 PM)

Originally Posted by WrikaWrek

Shog just stop it....

MikeB is a "Ps3 untapped potential and 360 lol that shit has nowhere to go from here" fanatic.

Why bother with fanatics?

Couldn't you just have sent him a private message to out this personal cheapshot? IMO the devs I know, IBM technical specialists, Insomniac, Naughty Dog, etc are not fanatical (despite their enthusiasm for and dedication to producing results). In the case of IBM they even designed both CPUs. To me they sound knowledgeable and respectful.

I have no reason to doubt them, as I have been stating many of the things they are stating now since many years ago. I am not the least bit surprised it takes time and effort to port legacy game engine to the Cell's SPEs, I stated this in early 2005.
Last edited by MikeB; 01-28-2008 at 03:19 PM.

Thread Tools