Support NeoGAF

[Radical_3d]

Nishino, you slimy fuck!

 

[Fafalada]

The PS3 was clearly less powerful. the Cell SPEs helped, but only so far that it could be on par in some games.

"Power" as a single metric didn't exist that generation (it was the last console gen we still had concrete hw differentation - not just the same hardware at different clock speeds).
I mean - sure - you could oversimplify things to say PS3 had more compute, or more memory bandwidth, or 360 had more pixel-shader throughput, faster/more (actual)CPU - but fundamentally the aggregation of differences did NOT boil down to any single metric no matter how much people online (and companies themselves) bent themselves into pretzel for it.
360 was the lead platform for the entire gen (the whole 'late-gen' PS3 leading ports is a bunch of nonsense - there were even explicit parity clauses holding PS3 ports back to 360 in cases where they performed better), and the platform publishers cared about, as it typically outsold PS3 versions substantially.

And while on paper PS3 absolutely was more powerful if you aggregate everything, it just didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Outside of 1st parties and the handful of 3rd party exclusives noone designed software for the platform, they ported to it from everywhere else.

Halo 4 has some fights that are on large areas with vehicles, dozens of enemies, realtime physics applied to tons of elements (and the vehicles of course), all running at a steady 720p30.

Killzone's literal namesake is built on specific set-pieces where you end up fighting dozens of enemies in massive shootouts, with "realtime physics and destructible elements" on basically everything, vehicles and of course 720x30. It's probable the arena physical dimensions are smaller (to create the feel of 'killzone', they needed density of encounter, not spread out), but you're creating an argument for the wrong IP here.
But it's also comparing two IPs with very different design ambitions - so again, bending into pretzel to say 'one can't be done because the other didn't do something' (in either direction).

Killzone 2 has insane input lag due to the GPU being pushed too hard

KZ2s Input-lag is a function of the render pipeline they designed, nothing to do with GPU load (especially since it's measurable at full 30fps, it's not function of dropped frames either). It's also far from alone - 'cinematic AAAs' have been doing this for ages before, and since - we have even worse with every R* release in the past 2 decades, or every NuRaider, and noone ever whined about those 'pushing the consoles too hard'.

 

[Mahnmut]

"Power" as a single metric didn't exist that generation (it was the last console gen we still had concrete hw differentation - not just the same hardware at different clock speeds).
I mean - sure - you could oversimplify things to say PS3 had more compute, or more memory bandwidth, or 360 had more pixel-shader throughput, faster/more (actual)CPU - but fundamentally the aggregation of differences did NOT boil down to any single metric no matter how much people online (and companies themselves) bent themselves into pretzel for it.
360 was the lead platform for the entire gen (the whole 'late-gen' PS3 leading ports is a bunch of nonsense - there were even explicit parity clauses holding PS3 ports back to 360 in cases where they performed better), and the platform publishers cared about, as it typically outsold PS3 versions substantially.

And while on paper PS3 absolutely was more powerful if you aggregate everything, it just didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Outside of 1st parties and the handful of 3rd party exclusives noone designed software for the platform, they ported to it from everywhere else.


Killzone's literal namesake is built on specific set-pieces where you end up fighting dozens of enemies in massive shootouts, with "realtime physics and destructible elements" on basically everything, vehicles and of course 720x30. It's probable the arena physical dimensions are smaller (to create the feel of 'killzone', they needed density of encounter, not spread out), but you're creating an argument for the wrong IP here.
But it's also comparing two IPs with very different design ambitions - so again, bending into pretzel to say 'one can't be done because the other didn't do something' (in either direction).


KZ2s Input-lag is a function of the render pipeline they designed, nothing to do with GPU load (especially since it's measurable at full 30fps, it's not function of dropped frames either). It's also far from alone - 'cinematic AAAs' have been doing this for ages before, and since - we have even worse with every R* release in the past 2 decades, or every NuRaider, and noone ever whined about those 'pushing the consoles too hard'.

Please guys, do not turn this thread into another retarded consoles war

 

[PaintTinJr]

Buuuuut … NeoGAF told me it's technically impossible for Sony to implement PS3 backward compatibility - or did Sony deliberately hold back this feature because they know how few games they release and want to keep players tied to new titles, rather than letting them enjoy their existing games for free on the console?

No, I would argue that PlayStation lost all interest in B/C when selling games optically at their native resolution was no longer their main objective, as it was previously an easy way to keep printing money from older games that were already fully legally licensed to sell without needing any publishers input. The minute digital became the focus of their distribution BC has the same licensing hurdles as remakes and remasters, so the latter just made more financial sense would be my guess.

 

[M1chl]

Cell fanboys in shambles

 

[Topher]

Buuuuut … NeoGAF told me it's technically impossible for Sony to implement PS3 backward compatibility - or did Sony deliberately hold back this feature because they know how few games they release and want to keep players tied to new titles, rather than letting them enjoy their existing games for free on the console?

Think the myth that Sony couldn't implement PS3 BC was proven to be bullshit a long time ago. If anything, Sony just doesn't see any money coming out of it.

 

[Astray]

Think the myth that Sony couldn't implement PS3 BC was proven to be bullshit a long time ago. If anything, Sony just doesn't see any money coming out of it.

That's honestly my guess here.

They should at least try to do some remasters of things like Infamous etc for the PS6 launch period. That is very easily doable and will gain traction imo.

 

[OLED_Gamer]

People don't want BC.

When Xbox One got bc then the mahoeiry of playstation users said they didn't want old games only new, so no reason for Sony to waste time and money on something the majority doesn't care about.

They want proper BC. Not just a port, but proper 4k etc.

PC world shows what happens when you have good BC- games age FAR better and have a market long term.

 

[Kupfer]

Think the myth that Sony couldn't implement PS3 BC was proven to be bullshit a long time ago. If anything, Sony just doesn't see any money coming out of it.

They want proper BC. Not just a port, but proper 4k etc.

PC world shows what happens when you have good BC- games age FAR better and have a market long term.

Playing more PS3 than PS5 for the last few months, the games jsut are more my alley.

I would be glad if "proper BC" would mean I can pop in my PS3 disc to the PS5 and play it with the dualsense. I even don't care about 720/30 no more.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Lol. I don't doubt games will perform and/or look better on Linux vs the native PS5 versions.

 

[squidilix]

showing again that devs often chose the wrong settings for their ports.

Wait, you tell me a game with Nvidia commercial/support for RT/PT is running worse on consoles bc "maybe is dev fault"?

Shocked..

 

[rodrigolfp]

Exactly.

Control is also pretty crazy with that 60fps RT mode unavailable on base PS5

And first Linux testing also showed GTA5 running with expanded RT settings compared to PS5 version. Developers this gen are disappointing...

Thanks also to being able to use all cores for the games. One of the most stupid limitations Sony and the 2 others do on the consoles.

 

[Topher]

People don't want BC.

When Xbox One got bc then the mahoeiry of playstation users said they didn't want old games only new, so no reason for Sony to waste time and money on something the majority doesn't care about.

When did the "majority" of PlayStation gamers say that?

 

[alabtrosMyster]

I was sure that was possible, RPCS3 was able to run many games at full speed on some Ryzen SoC systems.

Current versions are much faster than the old ones.

 

[Radical_3d]

Saying Halo 4 looks better than Killzone 2 is some history rewriting I wasn't prepared for. I'll never forgive my friend for forcing me to play that game and Guardians.

 

[RoboFu]

Sony takes PS5 ports away from PC so people turn the PS5 into a PC.

 

[Bojji]

Totally depends on the dev though. Lex Naughty Dog for example.

But ND games are just unoptimized on PC... Games like Death Stranding were performing more or less in line with console specs on PC.

Please guys, do not turn this thread into another retarded consoles war

Legacy console wars are the best!

Sony takes PS5 ports away from PC so people turn the PS5 into a PC.

Think about it... Dual Boot PS5 with linux and standard Sony OS is the ultimate gaming machine, you can play 99% of games on it.

 

[kevboard]

Saying Halo 4 looks better than Killzone 2 is some history rewriting I wasn't prepared for. I'll never forgive my friend for forcing me to play that game and Guardians.

it doesn't look "better", it is more impressive.

linear corridor shooter with no physics and limited NPCs vs open arena shooter with lots of physics and lots of NPCs

Resident Evil Remake looks better than Resident Evil 4, but RE4 is more technically impressive, and REmake looks better due to the nature of how the game is built.

and the same is true for Killzone 2 vs Halo 4

 

[Radical_3d]

it doesn't look "better", it is more impressive.

linear corridor shooter with no physics and limited NPCs vs open arena shooter with lots of physics and lots of NPCs

Resident Evil Remake looks better than Resident Evil 4, but RE4 is more technically impressive, and REmake looks better due to the nature of how the game is built.

and the same is true for Killzone 2 vs Halo 4

You clearly don't remember both games. I don't blame you, playing Halo 4 is a traumatic experience that leads to locked memories and OCD behaviours.

On the other hand KZ2 is a piece of shit as well!! It erased the heavier feeling of the first one and its original weapons (the bolter-like primary weapon featured in the infamous 2005 E3 trailer) in favour of a more generic CoD set of current era weaponry. Sorry, not sorry.

 

[Giallo Corsa]

You clearly don't remember both games. I don't blame you, playing Halo 4 is a traumatic experience that leads to locked memories and OCD behaviours.

On the other hand KZ2 is a piece of shit as well!! It erased the heavier feeling of the first one and its original weapons (the bolter-like primary weapon featured in the infamous 2005 E3 trailer) in favour of a more generic CoD set of current era weaponry. Sorry, not sorry.

In my opinion, both Halo 4 and Killzone 2 looked very good especially considering the hardware they were running on...
That said, purely on a technical level, Killzone 2 was definitely the more impressive of the two.

It's a shame, then, that both games ended up being pretty subpar when it came to actual gameplay but, if I had to pick one, I'd still go with Halo 4 since even with its issues, like disappearing weapons and toned-down AI, it still played much better overall.
Killzone 2, on the other hand, felt weighed down by heavy input lag and that overly "COD-ified" design which really hurt the experience.

Honestly, I think most people liked Killzone 2 mainly because of the graphics. The gameplay itself… not great. And the same goes for the story, the characters, and even the weapons.

 

[Bojji]

In my opinion, both Halo 4 and Killzone 2 looked very good, especially considering the hardware they were running on. That said, purely on a technical level, Killzone 2 was definitely the more impressive of the two.
It's a shame, then, that both games ended up being pretty subpar when it came to actual gameplay. If I had to pick one, I'd still go with Halo 4. Even with its issues, like disappearing weapons and toned-down AI, it still played much better overall. Killzone 2, on the other hand, felt weighed down by heavy input lag and that overly "COD-ified" design, which really hurt the experience.
Honestly, I think most people liked Killzone 2 mainly because of the graphics. The gameplay itself… not great. And the same goes for the story, the characters, and even the weapons.

KZ2 had great gameplay, I think gun behavior and enemy animations+physics are still top tier.

 

[Radical_3d]

KZ2 had great gameplay, I think gun behavior and enemy animations+physics are still top tier.

Gun behavior is so much worse than in the first one isn't even funny. In the second game the main weapon is just an M-4/M-16, while in the original is a slow rate but high caliber weapon that behaves like nothing from today (timestamped):


And the main assault Helghast weapon was a cheap un accurate weapon that was consistent with the story of lots of industrial power but little care for the individual. And all had a secondary fire.

This was the first of many of Hulst's mistakes.

I'd still go with Halo 4

The forerunners are awful and the story… don't get me started.