Support NeoGAF

[MikeB]

@ industrian

You can learn a lot from the past. For example with regard to NeoGeo gaming vs PC gaming of the time. The NeoGeo provided an advanced heterogeneous multi-processing approach, the PC had tons of memory in comparison, the NeoGeo only had 64 KB of main memory, 64 KB video memory, 8 KB Palette Memory, 2 KB Fast Video Ram and 2 KB for audio, etc.

Yet NeoGeo games were far far above anything a 1990 highend PC could do with regard to gaming at the time. It could do this by moving data around quickly and didn't have to run a useless OS like MSDOS, a lot of this can be applied to modern game consoles as well when talking about differences in optimal game engine approaches.

IMO history shouldn't be forgotten.

 

[herod]

OS memory footprint has been reduced, little difference has been seen in third party titles, all technical excuses have been exhausted. PS3 ports are still inferior, and devs show no sign of making it the primary platform, possibly because it makes little financial sense to put the effort in to get it running any better than 'acceptable'.

Another holiday season of games has passed and 360 SKUs are still the best technical performers.

The pragmatists will point to the 360 as the overwhelmingly superior system of this generation. Enormous budgets poured into a pair of first party titles isn't going to change a thing. GT4 was an incredible achievement on the PS2 but nobody would dispute that the Xbox was the superior system of the previous generation.

 

[MikeB]

@ herod

That's not true, games currently under development are more and more being lead on the PS3 (as it makes sense technically for other platforms as well). Of course for some games like Tomb Raider Underworld development was already started well before these devs had PS3 hardware to work with. So assets wise the game is totally 360 centric (as a dev told as quoted earlier within this thread).

Moving stuff onto the SPEs and developing new tech of course takes time, that's why I said years before the PS3 released it would take quite some time before devs would be able to get anywhere near to getting the most out of the PS3 like was the case with regard to Amiga hardware.

 

[herod]

By the time the PS3 has caught up, if it catches up, the generation will be over.

An overcomplicated architecture with paper superiority is pretty meaningless in the real world.

 

[Busty]

No matter what you might think of this thread you can't deny that it's a fascinating read no matter which side of the fence you are on.

And in saying that, I have to give MikeB kudos getting 'straight back on the horse'after his ban.

I have a feeling that after we see the God Of War 3 footage (teaser trailer) this month this thread is going to go crazy (for better or worse) all over again.

 

[herod]

This thread can only go truly crazy when a third party cross-platform title with very clear PS3 advantages is released, surely. This will never happen.

 

[industrian]

IMO history shouldn't be forgotten.

Yet you boiled it down so eloquently to the ST/Amiga fanboy wars.

The only thing thing that the majority of people remember about consoles are the quality of the games - not the speed of the CPUs, amount of memory, or whether or not the console had a built-in humidor.

That and Sony's apotheosizing of the PS3 hardware means very little if multi-platform developers and publishers aren't going to take advantage of it.

 

[lowrider007]

By the time the PS3 has caught up, if it catches up, the generation will be over.

It depends, if the rumours are to believed and both 360 and PS3 are going to be based on the same (but upgraded/enhanced) architecture then everything developers learn now could be passed on to the next generation, for Sony in particular due to the complexity's of the playstation's architecture this could be of big significance.

 

[MikeB]

This thread can only go truly crazy when a third party cross-platform title with very clear PS3 advantages is released, surely. This will never happen.

That's not the case with regard to multi-platform development, neither was this the case for Amiga and ST development (for example Ocean's multi-platform ST/Amiga games, which were roughly identical). For example you can't have one version of your game with twice the amount of enemies vs the other.

Small minor differences are to be expected, like is already the case, but more and more to the advantage of the PS3. I know 360 fans like to hype tiny differences to the advantage of various 360 multi-platform games, but IMO it's come to a point those differences are getting laughable to get upset about and hype to helll and back, especially with exclusives head and shoulders above anything else released for both platforms.

 

[herod]

That's not the case with regard to multi-platform development, neither was this the case for Amiga and ST development. For example you can't have one version of your game with twice the amount of enemies vs the other.

Small minor differences are to be expected, like is already the case, but more and more to the advantage of the PS3. I know 360 fans like to hype tiny differences to the advantage of various 360 multi-platform games, but IMO it's come to a point those differences are getting laughable to get upset about.

When IGN are still very recently knocking full digits off of PS3 reviews for performance issues, I'd hardly call it laughable. Also with technical comparisons by Eurogamer showing lower texture quality and rendering resolutions still seemingly the norm, the essence of the issue is still clear that the PS3 is the weaker general purpose gaming platform.

If what is claimed to be true (that third parties are prioritising PS3, I'd only heard Criterion and maybe Midway(?) to say this), at what point over the next 12-24 months should we expect the majority of PS3 releases to be of at least equivalent if not superior quality? Can you estimate roughly when?

 

[herod]

It depends, if the rumours are to believed and both 360 and PS3 are going to be based on the same (but upgraded/enhanced) architecture then everything developers learn now could be passed on to the next generation, for Sony in particular due to the complexity's of the playstation's architecture this could be of big significance.

Yep, let's hope so. It will be good to see less of an obvious 'on the job learning' experience in games in the next generation.

 

[gofreak]

Enormous budgets poured into a pair of first party titles isn't going to change a thing. GT4 was an incredible achievement on the PS2 but nobody would dispute that the Xbox was the superior system of the previous generation.

There's a bit of a difference there, though. I don't know if GT4 was roundly superior technically than anything on Xbox. It was a remarkable achievement on PS2, sure, but that's a different mater.

On PS3 you'll probably be seeing releases that are fairly clearly superior to anything else on consoles, not just within its own system.

The question for Sony is if they can disseminate the benefit of those larger investments across all their dev teams, so that smaller projects can leverage them too without inflating their own budgets to similar heights. That is possible, but Sony will have to make it happen.

 

[herod]

There's a bit of a difference there, though. I don't know if GT4 was roundly superior technically than anything on Xbox. It was a remarkable achievement on PS2, sure, but that's a different mater.

There was little to beat it given that it ran at 60fps. Rallisport Challenge 2 perhaps. Damage in Forza/PGR2 muddies the waters, but given the clear paper hardware gap, it and its prequel were highly impressive.

On PS3 you'll probably be seeing releases that are fairly clearly superior to anything else on consoles, not just within its own system.

I look forward to it, but there has been zero evidence yet that this will be the case

The question for Sony is if they can disseminate the benefit of those larger investments across all their dev teams, so that smaller projects can leverage them too without inflating their own budgets to similar heights. That is possible, but Sony will have to make it happen.

I can't see this happening at all, to be honest.

 

[Tormentoso]

By the time the PS3 has caught up, if it catches up, the generation will be over.

An overcomplicated architecture with paper superiority is pretty meaningless in the real world.

The PS3 already surpace any other console on the market,graphics whise people tend to use multiconsole games as rule,when those sertainly aren't the best way to mesure graphics or power.

Killzone 2 for me invalidate any comparition made with multiconsoles games,yes almost all of them look a little better on 360,but Killzone 2 look a hell of allot better than anything on the console market so what is the point.

 

[lowrider007]

When IGN are still very recently knocking full digits off of PS3 reviews for performance issues, I'd hardly call it laughable. Also with technical comparisons by Eurogamer showing lower texture quality and rendering resolutions still seemingly the norm, the essence of the issue is still clear that the PS3 is the weaker general purpose gaming platform.

If what is claimed to be true (that third parties are prioritising PS3, I'd only heard Criterion and maybe Midway(?) to say this), at what point over the next 12-24 months should we expect the majority of PS3 releases to be of at least equivalent if not superior quality? Can you estimate roughly when?

This is a non issue it really is, the differences between multi-platform games this generation is very small, it's only really the hardened fanyboys and interweb geeks that really care that a game is dropping a few frames or a game is rendered in 640p as opposed to 720p, the majority of people in the real world are completely oblivious to this stuff, it's the reason why games like Need for Speed continue to sell in there millions, if we're to gage the success of a games console based on it's technical prowess then the xbox1 should of been king last gen, you compare multi-plat titles between ps2 and 360, the majority of them looked night and day difference but people didn't care, they brought the ps2 version in their millions.

Look at the wii now, over shadowing both the ps3 and 360, I really really think that the technical capability's of the games console is a non issue for the majority, I think the success of a console is mainly based on the services the company behind said console is offering, the games catalogue, advertising, pricing, and how they position themselves in the market place, this is what decides the success of a games console, not whether a texture is slightly low res or a game is missing a few pixels compared to it's competitors version of the same game.

 

[gofreak]

I look forward to it, but there has been zero evidence yet that this will be the case

I think Killzone may be the first. It looks pretty much better than anything else out there on consoles at the moment. Sometimes differing levels of technical sophistication aren't easy to spot in the final product, particularly when a lot of things are at a high level, but Killzone is a case where it's very readily apparent I think. Everyone's said all along that using Cell will be the key to showing any difference, and I don't think it's coincidence that KZ2 seems to be leveraging it pretty heavily toward the graphical quality of the final image you see on the screen.

Sony may have 2 or 3 other 'poster childs' next year that we know of (candidates being uncharted 2, heavy rain and god of war 3..though i think the latter will be 2010).

 

[Tormentoso]

There was little to beat it given that it ran at 60fps. Rallisport Challenge 2 perhaps. Damage in Forza/PGR2 muddies the waters, but given the clear paper hardware gap, it and its prequel were highly impressive.



I look forward to it, but there has been zero evidence yet that this will be the case



I can't see this happening at all, to be honest.

Come on dude are you for real? Killzone 2 already looks better than anything on the console market,i don't understand why is so hard for people to give credict to the PS3,come on it came 1 year after the 360 there is no chame on its games looking better,just like the xbox was more powerful than the PS2,but should we compare them?


The xbox landed almost 2 years after the PS2 not just one,like the PS3 and xbox 360,but sony did wonders with the PS2,now they are doing it again,but this time they pretty much outdid the complete console market quite easy,uncharted already supase anything on 360 when it was release(my opinion) Killzone 2 just set the bar and is not my opinion man, i think is quite a fact that should not be deny by any one,people shoud give credict where is do.

 

[herod]

I haven't seen Killzone 2 running, but I hope you're right, speaking as a game consumer. Hopefully the game will be fun too, and that they get enough time and budget to make sequels if it is as good as people hope.

The general context of the thread is discussing the merits of the PS3 architecture however, given its budget and delays, it really doesn't bode well for general PS3 development at all... quite the contrary.

 

[herod]

This is a non issue it really is, the differences between multi-platform games this generation is very small, it's only really the hardened fanyboys and interweb geeks that really care that a game is dropping a few frames or a game is rendered in 640p as opposed to 720p, the majority of people in the real world are completely oblivious to this stuff.

well, it's a technical thread, but the majority of people in the real world probably just look at price.

 

[MikeB]

I haven't seen Killzone 2 running, but I hope you're right, speaking as a game consumer. Hopefully the game will be fun too, and that they get enough time and budget to make sequels if it is as good as people hope.

The general context of the thread is discussing the merits of the PS3 architecture however, given its budget and delays, it really doesn't bode well for general PS3 development at all... quite the contrary.

An important reason why later nearly all Amiga games were considerably better (or roughly the same apart from much better audio) than Atari ST games was because game engine adaptations already happened, so devs could further enhance and build on already developed technology.

If aiming for the same quality, a Killzone 3 taking Killzone 2 assets (re-using much) and Killzone 2's game engine a new game could be made much cheaper and take less time to develop. More likely though is that they are going to enhance the game engine further (considering the huge technical headroom) and in addition create new even better looking and sounding assets, this based on lessons learnt from their first PS3 game. A bit like God of War 2 vs God of War 1 on the PS2.

For example the 2007 360 to PS3 port of Madden wasn't running as well on the PS3, for the latest Madden reviewers state the game is a lot more impressive, this while both versions are identical, so future games based on this game engine shouldn't be expected to be worse on the PS3 as they will enhance things further.

 

[spwolf]

I haven't seen Killzone 2 running, but I hope you're right, speaking as a game consumer. Hopefully the game will be fun too, and that they get enough time and budget to make sequels if it is as good as people hope.

The general context of the thread is discussing the merits of the PS3 architecture however, given its budget and delays, it really doesn't bode well for general PS3 development at all... quite the contrary.

in general when you talk about something, its good to check and be up to date so you wont look like tool... So feel free to visit KZ2 thread, look over videos and read over opinions of people who both reviewed it and played the beta... quite few of resident gaffers posted their bits.

 

[itxaka]

Oh man, if you don't have enough with MikeB here it comes spwolf.

 

[herod]

in general when you talk about something, its good to check and be up to date so you wont look like tool... So feel free to visit KZ2 thread, look over videos and read over opinions of people who both reviewed it and played the beta... quite few of resident gaffers posted their bits.

When I want to talk about my opinion I want it to actually be MY OPINION, not someone else's or what Guerilla want us to see right now.

edit: actually what difference would it make what the videos show or what people think? The game is still late.

 

[spwolf]

When I want to talk about my opinion I want it to actually be MY OPINION, not someone else's or what Guerilla want us to see right now.

edit: actually what difference would it make what the videos show or what people think? The game is still late.

late to what? You have opinion of something that you never saw or played?

Saying: I hope it turns out ok and that it plays well is just another way of saying it might suck and you are making that your opinion. Which it doesnt, tons of info is already on these boards.

I mean you are trying to say KZ2 reflects bad on PS3? :lol

 

[herod]

I thought I was quite clear really, but I suppose you read what you want to read.

 

[MikeB]

I thought I was quite clear really, but I suppose you read what you want to read.

The original God of War took 3 years to develop, so what? It takes time to create amazing games. BTW, God of War 2 only took 2 while taking the game well further technically as well as assets wise.

 

[AndyD]

This thread can only go truly crazy when a third party cross-platform title with very clear PS3 advantages is released, surely. This will never happen.

Well, one of the bigs will be FF13 and Versus. If 13 comes out and its the same on both, but Versus comes out and its significantly better than 13, it will be the end of the world.

The question is what are minor vs major differences.

 

[herod]

I'm not denying that these games won't be the most impressive technical games.

I would still be interested to hear your estimates on when we will see the majority of third party titles to have a clear (or even minor technical) advantage on PS3.

 

[AndyD]

I'm not denying that these games won't be the most impressive technical games.

I would still be interested to hear your estimates on when we will see the majority of third party titles to have a clear (or even minor technical) advantage on PS3.

Some PS3 third party titles have had minor advantages for a while now. Just like some 360 games have had minor advantages.

But I think we are at the point where the differences are so small in 99% of the games, that we could call the games "identical". We are at the "identical" stage IMHO and will be for the rest of the generation.

The point is that third parties are interested in having their games as equal as possible to prevent any charges of favoritism. Its not in their interest to alienate any possible user base.

So we are unlikely to see a point where a majority has a clear advantage on PS3, just as we are unlikely to see a point where the majority has a clear advantage on 360 anymore. Going forward, as far as third parties' multiplatform games are concerned, its the exclusive DLC that will differentiate games, as unfortunate as that is.

But the biggest differences will be in exclusive first, second or third party games. Which makes our job as fanboys that much harder because we cant directly compare and argue and complain.

 

[H_Prestige]

I'm not denying that these games won't be the most impressive technical games.

I would still be interested to hear your estimates on when we will see the majority of third party titles to have a clear (or even minor technical) advantage on PS3.

Some 3rd party games already have minor advantages on the ps3 in terms of textures. I forgot which site did the comparison, but they compared fallout, star wars, COD WaW, SCIV, dead space, and a few others.

EDIT: here it is

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6201700/index.html?tag=topslot;title;

 

[bj00rn_]

like was the case with regard to Amiga hardware.

...And look where it got them: Amiga completely and utterly dead even with several revival efforts along (I used to be hardcore Amiga fan, I'm just saying). All this techno-babble doesn't make a shit difference. If Sony and the PS3 continues on its path focusing on the paper-specs, "SPE usages" and always what's supposed to be "coming in the future", the PS3 will continue to be at the losing end, a elitist niche platform, less sales, and thus with less developer support to push the hardware/software.

 

[chris0701]

Some 3rd party games already have minor advantages on the ps3 in terms of textures. I forgot which site did the comparison, but they compared fallout, star wars, COD WaW, SCIV, dead space, and a few others.

EDIT: here it is

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6201700/index.html?tag=topslot;title;

Which game has better textures for PS3 version in the feature ?

To be frank,the general consesus/truth should be the performance gap between 360 and PS3 is not tremendous as Xbox v.s PS2.Let technical statement which is filled unnecessary PR words alone.

Second,if one developer said "We use SPEs to do %^&%&^%^",it should not be news/surprise anymore,even for exaggerated opinion on "PS3 could 3x better than 360 in future!!". 3rd party developers still use SPEs for great deal to make their games have proper performance,however,they do not need those technical opinion for PR.

 

[spwolf]

I'm not denying that these games won't be the most impressive technical games.

I would still be interested to hear your estimates on when we will see the majority of third party titles to have a clear (or even minor technical) advantage on PS3.

what does that mean? That PS3 wont be powerful until "majority" 3rd parties make games look better on it than on 360? That also does not make a lot of sense. I doubt any serious 3rd party game will look "considerably" better on PS3 than 360 (and I dont mean close up of some random textures). It is just not really good for anyone.

But that doesnt mean that Sony 1st/2nd party games wont look awesome, which is the whole point. or 3rd party exclusives (which are becoming very rare).

 

[spwolf]

...And look where it got them: Amiga completely and utterly dead even with several revival efforts along (I used to be hardcore Amiga fan, I'm just saying). All this techno-babble doesn't make a shit difference. If Sony and the PS3 continues on its path focusing on the paper-specs, "SPE usages" and always what's supposed to be "coming in the future", the PS3 will continue to be at the losing end, a elitist niche platform, less sales, and thus with less developer support to push the hardware/software.

techno babble is why this thread exists... and not for sales age. If you dont care what games utilize SPU's, then skip the thread...

 

[chris0701]

techno babble is why this thread exists... and not for sales age. If you dont care what games utilize SPU's, then skip the thread...

We need some voices/opinions from 3rd party developers.

If one 3rd party developer said they used SPEs a lot,and their PS3 technical speech had lots of graphics terms but their project *only* have comparable performance with 360 version.


How would you guys think ?

 

[bj00rn_]

techno babble is why this thread exists... and not for sales age. If you dont care what games utilize SPU's, then skip the thread...

Yeah, exactly, and that's the thing;

I find it interesting that a thread solely about SPU utilization has basically none past the first page besides a lot of meaningless guess-timates from a PS3-enthusiastic crowd of first parties.

From second page to the end it's all just a giant shitload of FUD on one side and best-case Soria Moria fairy tale on the other.

 

[herod]

what does that mean? That PS3 wont be powerful until "majority" 3rd parties make games look better on it than on 360? That also does not make a lot of sense.

Why not? 360 clearly has the lead when all things are equal, all Killzone 2 is proving is a measure of what the PS3 can do with unlimited time and money.

What we don't know is what the 360 could do if it had a title similar to Killzone 2's budget and development delays to perfect it.

I'm willing to stand corrected here because obviously we don't know the numbers involved, but this is all a bit pointless until something empirical actually changes.

 

[filopilo]

Some SPU particle stuff could kill any overclocked 360.

 

[AndyD]

We need some voices/opinions from 3rd party developers.

If one 3rd party developer said they used SPEs a lot,and their PS3 technical speech had lots of graphics terms but their project *only* have comparable performance with 360 version.

How would you guys think ?

It is "What would you guys think?".

It depends on how they used the SPEs. Nowadays almost every third party uses them, which is why we are seeing "identical" games. The questions is whether they had time, money, budget and interest to maximize those SPEs or if the goal all along (from day one of the game) was to come out with identical games. If the goal was "identical" experience, then it does not matter because as soon as they got identical performance they were probably satisfied and stopped optimizing.

The true test is exclusives by third parties, and how those look. Because those are the only games that will exploit every nook and cranny to the best of their ability. Unfortunately we cant put those side by side as easily.

 

[chris0701]

@ industrian


Yet NeoGeo games were far far above anything a 1990 highend PC could do with regard to gaming at the time. It could do this by moving data around quickly and didn't have to run a useless OS like MSDOS, a lot of this can be applied to modern game consoles as well when talking about differences in optimal game engine approaches.

IMO history shouldn't be forgotten.

Some broken logic above.

Neo-geo had far better sprite performance and color palaette,just because they did not have MSDOS for huge memory? Custom video chip was the major reason that made console games better than PC games in 90s.

Plus,Neo geo console was a high price machine.

 

[FirewalkR]

Aaah, this thread is on fire again. :lol

 

[AndyD]

Why not? 360 clearly has the lead when all things are equal, all Killzone 2 is proving is a measure of what the PS3 can do with unlimited time and money.

What we don't know is what the 360 could do if it had a title similar to Killzone 2's budget and development delays to perfect it.

I'm willing to stand corrected here because obviously we don't know the numbers involved, but this is all a bit pointless until something empirical actually changes.

It does not have the lead all things considered. Games are identical nowadays as devs got the hang of the PS3.

Also, there was no unlimited money or time. This has not been in development any longer than most exclusive games nowadays. You also have to think that a game engine also came out of the work, not just a game, much like GoW resulted in an improved engine as well as a game. Halo 3 had a similar budget (in excess of 30 million). Both far short of mega budget games like GTA4 and others.

The point is both sides have their big budget and well developed games, and K2 is not out of the ordinary in the grand scheme of things.

 

[gofreak]

In presence of games that are both technically superior to multiplat offerings and stuff on consoles in general, it's hard to argue that any inferior multiplat ports are the result of a lack of power vs the relative ease or difficulty of leveraging that power. In other words, multiplat comparisons may tell us something about the relative ease of developing for one platform vs another, but it's hard to use them as absolute measures of platform power if one is perhaps more powerful, but more difficult to leverage.

If another system has more power, as well as being easier to dev for, then it's up to its platform holder to show us that. But as you say yourself, I don't know if we can say for sure that MS, for example, simply isn't making the same effort as Sony. I doubt MS's big games are cheap to make. Houses like Rare and Lionhead and Remedy and Epic etc. seem to be pretty resource rich, and seem to be given the luxury of time. MS also has huge r&d resources that they plough into related fields.

It's pretty hollow for MS or anyone else to say "well, we can't say for sure because they're not trying". If they're not gonna try, they'll let Sony run away with the claim to more technically impressive games, and thus help Sony validate their claim to having more powerful hardware. But again, I think it's too easy an assumption to make that MS or its partners are not trying or don't have the same resources.

The other thing to bear in mind is..we have less visibility of MS's lineup for the next year. So who knows, maybe they do have something cooking that bests the PS3's upper tier, and we just haven't seen it yet. But they're gonna have to show us that before we can come to that conclusion, particularly when the Sony seems to be showing a much faster rate of technical improvement which doesn't seem to be letting up next year at all (if anything it seems like it might be hitting a fairly critical point next year).

Also, I'm not saying one design choice re. power vs ease-of-development is better than the other..I think either can be smart depending on your situation. Given the context this gen, I think MS might have got the balance of focus between good dev tools and good hardware better, allowing them to get out the gate really strongly, and it's something Sony should learn from going into next-gen.

 

[chris0701]

One interesting idea:

Xbox had much fewer installed base versus PS2,but 3rd party projects usually had better performance on Xbox/GC version.

Revenue issue ? To have better Xbox/GC game was a simple procedure ?

Or the performance gap was huge enough,so they could easily get evident difference on those platforms?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Why not? 360 clearly has the lead when all things are equal, all Killzone 2 is proving is a measure of what the PS3 can do with unlimited time and money.

What we don't know is what the 360 could do if it had a title similar to Killzone 2's budget and development delays to perfect it.

Do you think MS funded games are riding on small budgets? Games like HALO and Gears? Multiplatform games have never been a way to judge a systems potential because resources are spread across multiple platforms and the developers really can't take advantage of a systems strengths because they're too busy trying to make each version equal to one another. Exclusives have always been the way to separate systems because all resources are funneled into 1 version of the game and the developers really get the time to figure out what the system is capable of doing.

 

[AndyD]

One interesting idea:

Xbox had much fewer installed base versus PS2,but 3rd party projects usually had better performance on Xbox/GC version.

Revenue issue ? To have better Xbox/GC game was a simple procedure ?

Or the performance gap was huge enough,so they could easily get evident difference on those platforms?

The performance gap was much more significant. Games were not straight ports, it was not possible. So that was the reason then. This time the consoles are very evenly matched for the first time ever.

 

[DeadGzuz]

What we don't know is what the 360 could do if it had a title similar to Killzone 2's budget and development delays to perfect it.

Well you have Halo 3 and in some respects Too Human. BTW what KZ2 delays?

 

[Rindain]

Does anyone know whether Capcom is utilizing the full Blu-ray storage space for the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5?

Also, any word from Capcom regarding SPE usage on the PS3 RE:5?

 

[MikeB]

...And look where it got them: Amiga completely and utterly dead even with several revival efforts along (I used to be hardcore Amiga fan, I'm just saying). All this techno-babble doesn't make a shit difference. If Sony and the PS3 continues on its path focusing on the paper-specs, "SPE usages" and always what's supposed to be "coming in the future", the PS3 will continue to be at the losing end, a elitist niche platform, less sales, and thus with less developer support to push the hardware/software.

Everything has to change and go away eventually (also the PS3 in a distant future). MacOS died and was reborn as MacOS X, MSDOS died and now there's Vista, TOS died and so on.

However the Amiga is not forgotten and still brings up fond feelings amongst its past user base. For more than 7 years no other platform could touch it, many thousands of Amiga games were released. The DemoScene, public domain, shareware, etc the Amiga was leading all of that. It's wasn't all for nothing, the platform left a valuable legacy.

Would you have wanted to trade your Amiga during it's golden years for a ST or a higher clocked 286 MSDOS PC with twice the RAM? No? Well that's the point, no matter which system sold better due to pricing, no matter what system your neighbour may have owned you had the system with the best games, you may have edited your home videos with cool graphics at a time your neighbour didn't even know such things were possible to do on a computer. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q

Sure there were plans for a QNX Neutrino kernel based PPC Amiga:

Sadly the project got cancelled, as the owner of Amiga Inc at the time also build PCs and Microsoft threatened them to revoke their discounts on Windows. Putting them in a disadvantage compared to rivals. I don't condone monopolies, but sadly with the Bush adminstration the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft fell through and the testimonials of an ex-Gateway exec in this regard is now only a sad footnote in computing history.

But the dream still lives on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSA-q1qniMY (early beta)
http://www.acube-systems.biz/eng/software.php (mature product)

 

[Tormentoso]

Why not? 360 clearly has the lead when all things are equal, all Killzone 2 is proving is a measure of what the PS3 can do with unlimited time and money.

What we don't know is what the 360 could do if it had a title similar to Killzone 2's budget and development delays to perfect it.

I'm willing to stand corrected here because obviously we don't know the numbers involved, but this is all a bit pointless until something empirical actually changes.

In fact the xbox 360 only advantage is the ease of use,power wise the PS3 has more and i am quite sure just by looking at games coming in the same time frame,remember the xbox 360 is 3 years old the PS3 is 2,so the xbox 360 should had better looking games period,multi or exclusives,because it has not only the time advantage of developer been more used to the hardware,but the ease of use.

But when you compare Uncharted a game that was release 1 years after the PS3 was launch,and compare it with GOW a game release after the 360 was also a year old you see the difference.Uncharted does look better but not only beat GOW it pretty much beat anything the xbox 360 has on the market,Killzone 2 is just 1 step abode Uncharted and even more from anything on 360.

I don't really think that time and money will actually will put 360 games on par with Killzone 2,after all Killzone 2 doesn't have 8 years on the making,it was a CG on 2005 not real time,the game has like 2 years on the making which is not quite unlimited time.