Jason's Ultimatum
Member
deepbrown said:
Ah, you're right. I forget how he throws enemies against walls and punches. Throwing over tables? Hmm. Never tried that. I've never noticed Drake shaking when in cover. He seems more scared, but that's it. =\
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Naughty Dog: "Were probably only using 30 or 40 per cent of the power of the PS3"
- Thread starter TTP
- Start date
Ah, you're right. I forget how he throws enemies against walls and punches. Throwing over tables? Hmm. Never tried that. I've never noticed Drake shaking when in cover. He seems more scared, but that's it. =\
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Marconelly said:
This needs to be quoted.
People don't seem to realize just how much they were getting out of the PS2 over time did they?
No it's not "entirely meaningless" nor is meant to be entirely accurate either. You guys really need to stop overreacting to a simple rough estimate like it's the harbinger of the end of days. Yes, we all know fanboys like to jump on these kind of statements with delicious glee but just because they overstate the merit of such a claim of % power used, doesn't render the statement without merit. It STILL puts a very finite limit on what to expect. If they say they've only tapped 30-40% of the power of the PS3 for Uncharted, would you expect that to mean that a game that manages to double that PS3 power utilization would suddenly be identical to a Pixar movie in realtime? No - it clearly and meaningfully puts bounds on what to expect.i hate bees said:
People too often think that more power means better graphics. Some of that power may be used to improve visuals, but I would expect more of it to go to physics, destructible environments, collision detection, AI, procedural animations, etc.
I haven't played Uncharted, but from what I've seen it looks awesome. If tearing is a problem, then fixing that should be a priority for ND (if at the same time they can make it look better, then more power to them
, because I think it looks good enough.
I haven't played Uncharted, but from what I've seen it looks awesome. If tearing is a problem, then fixing that should be a priority for ND (if at the same time they can make it look better, then more power to them
, because I think it looks good enough.Lion Heart
Banned
What an incredible difference between the two threads...
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
kaching said:
Pfft, who needs estimates? My Fanboy Performance Analyzer says we're only producing 43% of the potential faux-outrage bullshit in this thread. For example, i hate bees is only using 1 SPU per cycle of bitching and complaining about nothing. By the end of this gen you won't even be able to read this thread without blowing your fucking brains out!
Fenderputty
Banned
deepbrown said:
That's cause you're using all of it in this thread. :lol
proposition
Banned
Of course it's not serious. I was pointing fun at the way NeoGAF blurts out 'lazy devs!' for pretty much everything.andycapps said:
i hate bees
Member
kaching said:
I'm not overreacting, I'm saying it's an entirely meaningless comment. Uncharted uses 100% of the PS3s power, if on their next title they've optimised their engine and got stuff running better then more power to them, but to claim developers are using 30 or 40% of the PS3s maximum potential is arbitrary and meaningless.
I think they should have given their statement a bit more thought.i hate bees said:
I think what they meant was that they did use 100% of the PS3's power on Uncharted, however they only used that 100% to 30-40% of its full potential. Basically with more experience and optimization they'll get more and more out of that 100%.
Dr_Cogent said:
Now the gang's all here!
They've said numerous times it's from their toolkit, which has an analyzer. You going to doubt Naughty Dog too out of all of the devs? Their prior works, and the fact that even people like Carmack and Newell can acknowledge them is more than enough to respect them.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
fit it on a dvd
J-Rzez said:
Theoretical limits will never be achieved. That's why they are theoretical. It may be 30 to 40 percent. Or it may be 50 to 60 percent. Analyzers aside - no one can say for sure what it might be. That's why he's ballparking it to begin with. The hardware has all it's physical limitations like any other electronic system, but how to fully tap into it all with the most efficient code is unknown and one can only speculate. What is the "most efficient" code is up to debate as well.
It's a nice estimated guess - but that's still what it is. I pull numbers out of my ass (estimated guesses) all day long at work on performance based on analysis tools, debugging and performance testing. It's more of an art than a science sometimes.
Metalmurphy
Member
No, that's not why they're theoretical... look the word up.Dr_Cogent said:
Metalmurphy said:
:lol You obviously don't understand the point.
Example:
A 802.11b wireless network has a theoretical limit of 11mbits/second. Thing is, that is never achieved and a lower bandwidth is what is achieved as a result. The theoretical (calculated limit) is never achieved since there is inherent loss in all systems.
Bearillusion
Banned
Jak 1 = no tearing
Jak 2 = a bit of tearing here and there
Jak 3 = tearing tearing and more tearing
Uncharted better not 'improve' like the Jak games did from 1 to 3. I could live with the tearing in 2 but 3 was ruined for me because of it.
Jak 2 = a bit of tearing here and there
Jak 3 = tearing tearing and more tearing
Uncharted better not 'improve' like the Jak games did from 1 to 3. I could live with the tearing in 2 but 3 was ruined for me because of it.
Metalmurphy
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
Example:
Theoretically I can jump 3 feet. I just did.
Point: Just because it's theoretical doesn't mean it's not achievable.
for the most part every dev hits near 100% "power"....unless of course they have the game pegged at 60 fps with room to spare.
It is how that power is used, that is important...the efficiency. To that end there seems to always be something to gain.
dumb, obvious post of the day.
It is how that power is used, that is important...the efficiency. To that end there seems to always be something to gain.
dumb, obvious post of the day.
Saying it's meaningless IS overreacting. To say that a developer's estimation of how much they got out of a fixed hardware platform on a game they spent more than 2 years developing is completely meaningless, well, that's not only overreacting, that's calling the devs in question a bunch of complete hacks to suggest that after all that time they wouldn't be able to quantify the finite power of the platform and their utilization of it in some meaningful fashion.i hate bees said:
First, he didn't claim developers plural are getting 30-40% of the PS3s max potential, he was only speaking for Naughty Dog and their first effort on the platform.
Second, to sit there and claim that every game they produce for the platform utilizes 100% of the platform's power - no matter how much they optimize and manage to include more advanced and more complex game code, assets and so forth - is far more arbitrary than making a rough estimate of what % power was used. You're changing the definition of 100% from game to game, literally moving the goalposts, and you're bitching about how arbitrary a claim like 30-40% is?!?
It's not arbitrary just because you don't have a clue or a frame of reference as to what it means. It may be meaningless to you but anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about game development can appreciate it for what it is without calling it completely meaningless.
You guys are so shellshocked from the wages of console war that you can't even allow a developer a simple measure of overall hardware utilization. It's ridiculous.
i hate bees
Member
kaching said:
Oh I know what it means
I'm just not putting words in the developers mouth, it's a stupid comment from someone who clearly isn't a programmer or engineer. Anyone who has a 'modicum' of knowledge re: game development face palms at these sorts of comments. Trust me.
Richard is an incredibly talented developer.i hate bees said:Oh I know what it means
Trust me.
i hate bees
Member
deepbrown said:
Game Designer.
kaching said:
Agreed. To say a first generation game uses 100% of the PS3 and a last generation game uses a 100% of the PS3 even though there's a huge visual difference would be meaningless to us all.
It may be true to say that Uncharted is using all the PS3 power to create its visuals, but this is exactly what we're talking about - there's a finite percentage of how much the coding can be improved - ND have estimated how much they can improve their coding by and how much more they can get out of the PS3 - which gives them the ability to guesstimate a percentage.
i hate bees
Member
deepbrown said:
I see what you're saying, all I'm trying to say is that comments like that are purely inflammatory, nothing more. As ND become more proficient at using Cell and RSX they'll constantly improve and optimize, so the PS3's 'PAWA' becomes a constantly moving subjective goal post. They'd have done much better to say 'We've improved our engine and are sure our fans will see the difference' as opposed to trying to sound technical and coming off as daft.
Only reason I point out hes a Game Designer is that they tend to be fairly sheltered from nitty gritty system stuff.
Anyway never mind, I agree with the semantics of what he's saying - I just don't agree with the way he said it.