It might be a good fit with deferred renderer.
Been wondering if tiled forward + techniques would be good fit for Vita.
You could fit lighting tile size to TBDR and keep the rendering within tile buffers, unlike in case of deferred renderer.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How powerful is the PlayStation vita?
- Thread starter BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
- Start date
Been wondering if tiled forward + techniques would be good fit for Vita.
You could fit lighting tile size to TBDR and keep the rendering within tile buffers, unlike in case of deferred renderer.
SRTtoZ
Member
Its also being made by Guerilla Games who made the other KZ's. Its going to be amazing.
KojiKnight
Member
Whether Vita is as powerful (or more so) than the iphone 5, we can be sure of one thing... By iphone 6/7 (ie in a year or two) the Vita will be left in the dust.
Not something I'm especially happy about mind you, Apple will doom the portable business if they can.
Not something I'm especially happy about mind you, Apple will doom the portable business if they can.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
nhlducks35
Member
It's by Sony Cambridge, which is under GG
papersleeves
Member
I won't pretend I'm an expert, but I do know twice the resolution does not mean half the framerate. Many factors has to be taken into consideration. For example, a game on my computer can run at 68 fps at 720p and will run at 62 fps at 1080p even though 1080p displays more than twice the amount of pixel. It depends of your cpu, your memory pool, your memory controller, your bandwidth, your fillrate and so on.
Well, it's interesting. When you think about the most graphically intensive games this gen, they had huge budgets. You have to. But we aren't going to get big budget games on mobile because they wouldn't be able to afford selling their expensive games for $5-10. Vita has the luxury of being able to have those big-budget games (as well, of course, as the smaller mobile-esque downloadable titles).
Right. I wasn't referring to framerate, but you are correct that there isn't one single factor but a multitude. That's why I'm saying that bringing up a GPU that has twice the raw performance of the Vita's GPU isn't a real indication that the iPad's graphical output is better. And then, even if overall output were to be similar, that's all theoretical since you have the whole issue I brought up in this post in regards to the other person I quoted. Theoretical graphical output and actual graphical output are different, and while the games you've brought up are indeed nice looking, there's a lot less going on in them than the Vita games. You can play NFS:MW on mobile and then on Vita, and even though the mobile version has better image quality and textures, you can easily tell which is the better, bigger-budget game.
papersleeves
Member
Looks like a pic from modern combat 3, not 4, which looks significantly better. Also, I'm not saying it compares to freaking killzone 2/3, but it does look similar to stuff like moh or cod on 360 or ps3.
SRTtoZ
Member
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/14/killzone-mercenary-announced-for-vita
Thats where I got it from.
It's being developed by Sony Cambridge which is now a part of Guerrilla Games, so yeah.
It really doesn't. I think you keep putting IQ only into your thoughts, when that's not the only factor.
If you look at this and this, you'll see that it looks like assets taken straight out of PS2 and rendered at a high resolution. Don't get me wrong, that's AWESOME and pretty incredible for a mobile game, but it's not doing anything as complex as the console games or even Vita games are doing.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Awesome news, but is it people that actually worked on KZ2-3 or just talent that now works for guerrilla games? If its the former I am now very hyped..
SRTtoZ
Member
Not sure but from everything seen so far, looks extremely promising.
Think about this for a second
Sony held off on Vita until they ironed out the emulation of PS1 and PS2 games on the system. Games available on the PSN store for purchase when the Vita was released.
They also released a phone SKU that was subsidized by the cell phone companies. Running a skin of Android to handle calls, texts, etc, while booting Vita games on the back end.
Why can't I hold all this money.jpg
*watches video* Ok, I'm not even kidding when I say that looks like an Xbox 1 title. Its not an insult, Xbox had some really nice looking racing games. But not on par with an HD console. Though it is at a higher resolution, so I'm not saying an Xbox could run it, but the detail level appears to be on par.
chickdigger802
Banned
vita can't handle ps2 ports like MGS and P4G at native res so it is a fair comparison
Maybe it is sony to blame...
Here is my theory.
Apple announces retina screens and how its like felating your eyeballs with the iphone 4. Devs were all scrambling to update their apps and make new ones that take advantage of that (optimized for glorious retina!), which is why you almost never see any apps or games that aren't native res on iphone (ipad more frequently).
Sony announces that Vita would easily handle ps3 ports on the system. Dev's scramble to make games that look comparable to ps3 games with various degrees of success. Do remember that a large chunk of console games aren't even native 720p and most tvs are 1080p now.
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
I've played this and it's really lacking. One other thing, this is not the same as the console experience, something you actually get on the Vita version of most wanted, which looks better than this anyway.
GhostTrick
Banned
Sony is wasting Vita's power with that screen rez.
480p would have been enough... And better, because easier to reach native res, so less needs of AA, and nicer games.
480p would have been enough... And better, because easier to reach native res, so less needs of AA, and nicer games.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
No. For one, the difference higher res makes is huge. For two, its not like devs have to abide by it...as evidenced by this thread.
Also, lower resolution needs more AA, not less.
famousmortimer
Banned
You can't be serious... it looks like an upressed early ps2 game.
This is a really interesting discussion.
Wat do you do with the power you have? Yes, games on vita show console like graphics, with normal maps, real time shadows etc. and 'naughty cheating games' like infinity blade and NFS on iPad use baked lighting etc. but plenty of people are citing them as looking better.
Considering games are all about smoke and mirrors, perhaps some developers would be wise to take a moment to consider whether they should push the vita to try and emulate full console rendering paths, and perhaps it may be more suitable to cut corners here and there, learn a few lessons from the mobile space
It's a bit similar to DX11 talk in PC gaming threads. I find high DX9 settings look fantastic and run much better than trying to get a playable framerate with a couple of extra DX11 effects switched on. Sometimes keeping it simple works.
Wat do you do with the power you have? Yes, games on vita show console like graphics, with normal maps, real time shadows etc. and 'naughty cheating games' like infinity blade and NFS on iPad use baked lighting etc. but plenty of people are citing them as looking better.
Considering games are all about smoke and mirrors, perhaps some developers would be wise to take a moment to consider whether they should push the vita to try and emulate full console rendering paths, and perhaps it may be more suitable to cut corners here and there, learn a few lessons from the mobile space
It's a bit similar to DX11 talk in PC gaming threads. I find high DX9 settings look fantastic and run much better than trying to get a playable framerate with a couple of extra DX11 effects switched on. Sometimes keeping it simple works.
PS3 0.75 is probably better. It has shaders etc that the PS2 didn't use so its a different class, more like Xbox upwards.
fabricated backlash
Member
Personally I found UC GA to be better than UC3. If only for focus and cohesive design vision.
Hell it had even better aiming (pre UC3 patch)
The Vita is again a system that was designed for the long haul. What a lot of people don't realize is that Sony doesn't need the Vita to be dominating the market now. They can steadily build up an install base (allthough sloooow) and when the 3DS ultimately becomes redundant, due to a patented mix of Nintendos hardware paradigms and a decline of support, the follow up to 3DS (if it's still a traditional gaming handheld) will not be leagues better than Vita in terms of specs. In that regard the Vita will still be relevant when that happens technically...
Now don't ask me if dedicated handhelds will still be relative at that point, I'll leave those predictions to all those snake oil salesmen.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
As much as I like iOS, and I do, there is an issue of efficiency and abstraction of graphics API. It is quite likely that babyproofing GPU resources' access is not the first thing on Sony's mind while Apple readied iOS development to be as accessible to all kinds of application developers as possible, including many people with zero 3D graphics experience or so.
How would a console 3D graphics programmer react to a platform, not saying which
, which does not allow you to use the built-in support for on-chip MSAA samples resolve and forces you to keep full resolution back and depth buffers off chip, render unresolved samples to RAM (RAM shared with the CPU, no dedicated VRAM), read them back and resolve the final color samples back out to RAM?
That would mean wasting RAM space and RAM bandwidth as well as GPU cycles increasing the cost of the "free" AA of TBDR's like PowerVR GPU's.
I do not think this is the only case in which one vendor held back some of its SoC's capabilities to make sure developers would not hang themselves with a GL rope.
Edit: also, it is is not just the SoC's components you have, but how you assembled them. It seems like Sony put the stacked nature of the chips inside its SoC to good use giving both main RAM and VRAM quite a nice deal of bandwidth. As much as people like to criticize split RAM configurations, or non UMA solutions, such approaches do have the tangible benefits of providing more bandwidth to each component (CPU and GPU sides). iOS devices have been using a single UMA pool of RAM for quite a while now.
How would a console 3D graphics programmer react to a platform, not saying which
, which does not allow you to use the built-in support for on-chip MSAA samples resolve and forces you to keep full resolution back and depth buffers off chip, render unresolved samples to RAM (RAM shared with the CPU, no dedicated VRAM), read them back and resolve the final color samples back out to RAM?That would mean wasting RAM space and RAM bandwidth as well as GPU cycles increasing the cost of the "free" AA of TBDR's like PowerVR GPU's.
I do not think this is the only case in which one vendor held back some of its SoC's capabilities to make sure developers would not hang themselves with a GL rope.
Edit: also, it is is not just the SoC's components you have, but how you assembled them. It seems like Sony put the stacked nature of the chips inside its SoC to good use giving both main RAM and VRAM quite a nice deal of bandwidth. As much as people like to criticize split RAM configurations, or non UMA solutions, such approaches do have the tangible benefits of providing more bandwidth to each component (CPU and GPU sides). iOS devices have been using a single UMA pool of RAM for quite a while now.
chickdigger802
Banned
As much as I like iOS, and I do, there is an issue of efficiency and abstraction of graphics API. It is quite likely that babyproofing GPU resources' access is not the first thing on Sony's mind while Apple readied iOS development to be as accessible to all kinds of application developers as possible, including many people with zero 3D graphics experience or so.
How would a console 3D graphics programmer react to a platform, not saying which
That would mean wasting RAM space and RAM bandwidth as well as GPU cycles increasing the cost of the "free" AA of TBDR's like PowerVR GPU's.
I do not think this is the only case in which one vendor held back some of its SoC's capabilities to make sure developers would not hang themselves with a GL rope.
Well many of them went to make FB games. They can change
As has been stated though, your comment wasn't entirely correct. Sony Cambridge were only recently (this year) placed under GG, and they aren't the team that made the Killzone games.
Maastricht
Member
The most important thing about any console is that it can play a game released up to 6 years after you bought the device as well as games you bought any of the years before. So let's take the analogy for iPhones. If you had the money to buy a new iPhone every year, and developers could make a game every year that takes full advantage of that new iPhone, then yes, the iPhone would have better games every time.
But the reality is that not everyone can buy a new iPhone every year, and not every developer can therefore afford to make a game specifically for that new hardware every year. So you will get compromises where games are developed to work with older generations as well as new, and people with older generations of iPhone will get a lesser experience, while people with newer generations of iPhones will get a sub-optimal experience.
This is all not a big problem necessarily. But it is simply a lot like PC vs consoles - both have their advantages.
The big advantage of the console setup, and the Vita in this case, is obviously that you can buy a Vita now for 199 euro (and potentially less as time goes on, or with more/cheaper memory cards etc.), and every game released in it over at least the next five years will run great, and as the device becomes better known by developers, you'll even see some graphical improvements that you didn't have to upgrade your hadware for.
Yes, at the end if the cycle it will start looking (significantly at times) less good than iPhone games etc. but even then you'll have great value for money and, let's not forget, analog sticks
But the reality is that not everyone can buy a new iPhone every year, and not every developer can therefore afford to make a game specifically for that new hardware every year. So you will get compromises where games are developed to work with older generations as well as new, and people with older generations of iPhone will get a lesser experience, while people with newer generations of iPhones will get a sub-optimal experience.
This is all not a big problem necessarily. But it is simply a lot like PC vs consoles - both have their advantages.
The big advantage of the console setup, and the Vita in this case, is obviously that you can buy a Vita now for 199 euro (and potentially less as time goes on, or with more/cheaper memory cards etc.), and every game released in it over at least the next five years will run great, and as the device becomes better known by developers, you'll even see some graphical improvements that you didn't have to upgrade your hadware for.
Yes, at the end if the cycle it will start looking (significantly at times) less good than iPhone games etc. but even then you'll have great value for money and, let's not forget, analog sticks
I see some people comparing graphics from Vita games with Infinity Blade II on iPad...
Have you ever noticed the framerate in that game or the fact that you can't do anything besides swiping the screen to attack? I don't care how good it looks, that game drops a lot under 30fps and I'm pretty sure it's easier to achieve those graphics if you can restrict the movement/gameplay to touching the screen to continue the level.
Have you ever noticed the framerate in that game or the fact that you can't do anything besides swiping the screen to attack? I don't care how good it looks, that game drops a lot under 30fps and I'm pretty sure it's easier to achieve those graphics if you can restrict the movement/gameplay to touching the screen to continue the level.
chickdigger802
Banned
The most important thing about any console is that it can play a game released up to 6 years after you bought the device as well as games you bought any of the years before. So let's take the analogy for iPhones. If you had the money to buy a new iPhone every year, and developers could make a game every year that takes full advantage of that new iPhone, then yes, the iPhone would have better games every time.
But the reality is that not everyone can buy a new iPhone every year, and not every developer can therefore afford to make a game specifically for that new hardware every year. So you will get compromises where games are developed to work with older generations as well as new, and people with older generations of iPhone will get a lesser experience, while people with newer generations of iPhones will get a sub-optimal experience.
This is all not a big problem necessarily. But it is simply a lot like PC vs consoles - both have their advantages.
The big advantage of the console setup, and the Vita in this case, is obviously that you can buy a Vita now for 199 euro (and potentially less as time goes on, or with more/cheaper memory cards etc.), and every game released in it over at least the next five years will run great, and as the device becomes better known by developers, you'll even see some graphical improvements that you didn't have to upgrade your hadware for.
Yes, at the end if the cycle it will start looking (significantly at times) less good than iPhone games etc. but even then you'll have great value for money and, let's not forget, analog sticks
who is gonna make those system pushing games on vita outside of sony though? 3rd party westerns won't be around. Japan games will just be upressed psp games.
The people who made Killzone 2/3 multiplayer modes.
Infinity Blade is such a hard game to pin down, I have seen some really nice UE3 game on mobile(ios/android) but the path in that game is so linear; not a lot to render outside of the character models, at least with the first one.
Yeah I didn't think it was bad, the load times actually seem to me to be less than the PS3 version.
doniewhalberg
Member
Yea, just to chime in. I have no stake either way, but the ipad video up there looks slick as shit for a tablet game, but I say that having watched it and thinking "Damn, that looks as good as Burnout 3". Which was a great looking game (still lurv it). It doesn't look anything like the console offering of NFSMW.
Also while I knew it was Sony Cambridge working on the KZ game, I actually had no idea they had been brought under GG, learned something here. That news must of blown right past me whenever it was announced.
Also while I knew it was Sony Cambridge working on the KZ game, I actually had no idea they had been brought under GG, learned something here. That news must of blown right past me whenever it was announced.
The correct answer is really easy, vita is way more powerful than a xbox and is close to a ps360.
Do you remember how xbox games look? This is fifa 2006 world cup, the last fifa game on xbox
and this is fifa soccer, a vita launch game
vita has higher resolution, higeer polygon count, better textures and shaders than the xbox.
Vita is not as powerful as a ps360 but it's close enough, we'll see good things
Do you remember how xbox games look? This is fifa 2006 world cup, the last fifa game on xbox
and this is fifa soccer, a vita launch game
vita has higher resolution, higeer polygon count, better textures and shaders than the xbox.
Vita is not as powerful as a ps360 but it's close enough, we'll see good things
yurinka
Member
There is a reason of why they release a lot of fighting games in Vita : the controls.
Other than that, you have to consider too that iOS first has an OS not optimized for gaming, like a handheld has. And then, iOS has hardware fragmentation and a market saturated with tons of garbage titles and too low prices.
They'd need to make a separate store for the high-end quality games with a higher price and to improve the OS, but even in this case you won't have proper controls for certain genres and you're going to sell this very good looking game to a very small portion of the iOS market because it won't support the low/mid end iOS devices.
In some genres the phones will compete, but in others no. For the high-end games, you have to consider that the phone user change his device every 6 months compared to the console user who changes it every 5 years. This time helps to the devs to invest more in optimizing tools or engines, and this is other reason of why some late PSP games looked way better than more powerful phones of its time, something that will also happen with Vita. Remember that it's its first year, so we still have to see 2nd gen Vita games.
To name an example, think that Bend released their first game. Now they started their 2nd game having the final hardware and final devkit since the start, an engine running on it and the experience of the development of the first game that will give them a lot of ideas to optimize and tweak this engine and tech for the 2nd one. And now they won't have the console launch as a forced milestone to release the game, so it's very likely that the 2nd will look way better than the 1st one.
As I remember when they announced the Vita (it was still named NGP as I remember) they showcased a UE3 demo running on Vita with some extra tech stuff. Does it was a Infinity Blade tech demo?
As much as I like iOS, and I do, there is an issue of efficiency and abstraction of graphics API. It is quite likely that babyproofing GPU resources' access is not the first thing on Sony's mind while Apple readied iOS development to be as accessible to all kinds of application developers as possible, including many people with zero 3D graphics experience or so.
How would a console 3D graphics programmer react to a platform, not saying which
That would mean wasting RAM space and RAM bandwidth as well as GPU cycles increasing the cost of the "free" AA of TBDR's like PowerVR GPU's.
I do not think this is the only case in which one vendor held back some of its SoC's capabilities to make sure developers would not hang themselves with a GL rope.
Edit: also, it is is not just the SoC's components you have, but how you assembled them. It seems like Sony put the stacked nature of the chips inside its SoC to good use giving both main RAM and VRAM quite a nice deal of bandwidth. As much as people like to criticize split RAM configurations, or non UMA solutions, such approaches do have the tangible benefits of providing more bandwidth to each component (CPU and GPU sides). iOS devices have been using a single UMA pool of RAM for quite a while now.
this is interesting. Would there be anything preventing this platform owner from providing two levels of access, so that those more accustomed to lower level GL coding could get more benefit from the hardware?
The biggest issue at the moment is IQ. Sub-HD plagues the vast majority of the launch titles. Having said that there are already games that look as good as the home console versions - Rayman, LBP and Virtua Tennis comes to mind. Golden Abyss looks quite similar to Uncharted 1 bar the poor IQ and Wipeout is in the same boat. I'm pretty eager to see what the Vita can do with more development time and optimisation.
I am not totally blown away by Uncharted, it looks a little aliased.
But until we don't see similar production values plus buttons & sticks on iOS, I couldn't care less.
And it is a first gen game, I really hope for a sequel soon, which I believe can look as good as PS3 Uncharted 1.
But until we don't see similar production values plus buttons & sticks on iOS, I couldn't care less.
And it is a first gen game, I really hope for a sequel soon, which I believe can look as good as PS3 Uncharted 1.
grimshawish
Banned
I fully expect this to be tweeted on that GAF post twitter account.
Some of your statements are truely bizzare.
Not really, he's spot on imo. It doesn't even feel like Sony wants to really sell loads of Vitas yet either, not until they make it cheaper.
Yeah it's not to my taste either and the vita version is much more impressive for a handheld title! The open world is huge...hardly any pop up even when travelling really fast..
This
It's a matter of what's relevant to people's eyes. Sony was smart with that long time ago. The PS1 had just the minor tricks that made 3D more acceptable for people. The Vita is all about emulating PS3 graphics but struggles way too much for it. When i was saying Uncharted was a bad sign, i mean the Vita started as something that wants to be more than what it is.
grimshawish
Banned
Then why release now?
Its silly floaty thinking.
Not even close huh?
And these are launch games.
Obviously vita doesn't have the same power of a ps3 and it even doesn't need it because it has a lower resolution and a smaller screen, but it has enough power to get similar visuals and good multis/ports/crossbuys from ps3.
The real power of vita is still unseen imo.
To start getting a return on investment. Start building up momentum etc.. it's not like they were oblivious to iphone and app popularity..it would naturally have taken a while. It's not silly but it's a bit floaty I'll give you that. Doesn't mean it's not what will actually happen and the reasons are there. It's not like people think the vita has reached its potential either. Where are the ads as well - no where near what you'd expect for a new platform. Hardly anything ever shows. It's like they are waiting to make more money on each unit sold.. or sony is just incompetent right..
Because PSP was irrelevant in the West for at least a year or two now?
Also Sony did state that Vita's life cycle will be very similar to PS3, with a planned 10 year support. In fact they directly said that it's a marathon and not a sprint prior to the launch of the console.
Come on, people have to stop lying to themselves. I mean Vita is impressive for a portable but still, there is no discussion and it's pretty ridiculous to post this kind of blind comparison...
Really ?
The assets, the textures, geometry...
And beyond the Vita power, we have to remember a PS3 game like Uncharted is 25 gigs, when a Vita game is 2g.. That's 12 times less...
.Not even close huh?
And these are launch games.
Obviously vita doesn't have the same power of a ps3 and it even doesn't need it because it has a lower resolution and a smaller screen, but it has enough power to get similar visuals and good multis/ports/crossbuys from ps3.
The real power of vita is still unseen imo.
Similar threads
- Poll