This is all true...Although I don't know how late the plans to use 2 Cells was changed.If I remember correctly, someone correct me if I'm wrong, the plans for the PS3 changed really late in the game as well. Originally the thing had no GPU and was just going to run everything through 2/4 (?) Cell processors but costs (and backlash from first party devs) stopped them doing it. This resulted in the PS3 getting a fairly standard GPU and an impressive custom CPU with not enough RAM to use both effectively without massive headaches and work arounds. Unreal Engine 3 was notoriously bad, a lot of developers struggled with it and, I imagine, dev tools were also much better on 360. It also went the other way, Naughty Dog, because of the custom approach they took with TLOU struggled to get the game running on PS4 because of how closely it was tied to the PS3 hardware.... it's also why MGS4 never ended up getting ported anywhere, the thing runs on a custom engine that was used once, for that game, which is probably why Konami then went all in on Fox Engine, to ensure they had a truly multiplatform solution going forward. It's why the PS4 (and XB1) are basically off the shelf laptop parts now. The risk of custom hardware is too high. You'll never see a console with ridiculous custom chips again. Too risky, too costly.
Edit: Oh, and the PS3's memory footprint for the OS was also higher than the 360s and it came right out of the already limited memory pool so a lot of earlier PS3 games had less RAM to work with than the later games.
You can change titles but it will only show inside the thread... in the topic list it will display the original until mods edit.
Being more specific you can change the post title and not the thread title.... every post in GAF has a title that can be edited.
This is all true...Although I don't know how late the plans to use 2 Cells was changed.
Another reason UE3 was such a problem was actually also due to the fact that its development and Xbox 360's development were tied together. Infact Xbox 360 received last minute upgrades and modifications just so Epic could make Gears of War look the way they wanted. And the fact that most multiplayer last gen used UE3 only made that issue more transparent.
You could say the entire reason 360 ended up having better multiplats and easier to develop environment was down to Epic and UE3.
Well unless it is something new I will try when I create a new thread.That's weird, 'cos when I did it, it showed my edited thread title.
Halo 4 does not look "better" than those, they are all on par with each other. Though I would still argue UC3 is somewhat technically superior still due to its volumetric lighting, animations and water physics but that's just me. Halo 4 has its own share of problems and shortcomings such as it has worse lighting quality than Halo 3/Reach (it used a lot of glow lights to give an illusion of lights rather than actual lightsources), it also completely lacked any form of AO and motion blur which for a 2012 game was odd especially since previous Halo games did have them. Infact I often find Reach more technically impressive even if people found Halo 4 more pleasing to look at due to its style.
Gears 3 imo was the best looking Xbox 360 game and it could trade blows with any PS3 exclusive.
Revisionist nonsense. PS3 exclusives looked very good, but so did equivilent 360 ones per era. Like, late game? LOTU looked amazing, but so does Halo 4. Certainly better than every other single game you mentioned.
I remember liking the graphics in UC3 but I played it again last year and holy shit does it look bad. Aliasing is terrible in that game. I found it so weird I popped in TLoU and it looks way better.PS. But you say Uncharted 3 that has better IQ than possible the 360 entry library.
You know Ellie, we really are Last of The Us.
But yeah, 360 had great looking games too, Halo 4 being one of the best looking games on the console. With that being said, I thought Killzone 3 looked gorgeous in certain levels (the snow, the sci-fi jungle) and Killzone 2 is also really really well animated.
I wish devs spent a little more time polishing animation & destruction in some of the triple A games - it's sad when games like Crysis & Bad Company 2 still do destruction better than 99% of current shooters.
Or you could say that it was because Sony made an awkward architecture. You're trying very hard to make sure that the fault isn't Sony's and the success isn't MS's. Like, yes, it is known that MS changed their RAM and shit due to what they were told very late - did Sony not have anyone working with them that could've said "Hey, this is weird"? The argument goes around all way.s
Lolwut?Or you could say that it was because Sony made an awkward architecture. You're trying very hard to make sure that the fault isn't Sony's and the success isn't MS's. Like, yes, it is known that MS changed their RAM and shit due to what they were told very late - did Sony not have anyone working with them that could've said "Hey, this is weird"? The argument goes around all way.s
Gears 3 imo was the best looking Xbox 360 game and it could trade blows with any PS3 exclusive.
Revisionist nonsense. PS3 exclusives looked very good, but so did equivilent 360 ones per era. Like, late game? LOTU looked amazing, but so does Halo 4. Certainly better than every other single game you mentioned.
360 has a better GPU and memory setup.
The PS3 was a programming mess. Thank Kutaragi for that. There was some bullshit going on about how he didn't want to make an "easy machine" so developers would "discover" more power the further the generation went. Fuck that.
halo 4 looks OK. nowhere near the games i mentioned
360 to PS3 GPU was nowhere close to 40% difference.
360 ~240 GLOPS
PS3 ~200 GLOPS
That is 20%.
halo 4 looks OK. nowhere near the games i mentioned
It was EA that showed everyone else how to do multiplats. In 2008 they published Dead Space, Burnout Paradise and Mirror's Edge.
Other than 2007 games as well as Rockstar, Call of Duty and Bethesda games the difference between the two systems is massively overstated, at least for what I wanted to play. I've double dipped on a lot of games courtesy of GWG/PS+ and I can't easily tell the difference between many of my favourites.
I would put Halo 4 in the top 10 best looking games of last generation. It would be one of the first games to come to mind if I was compiling such a list. It's a lot better than just "OK".
Yeah to me someone trying to say Halo 4 doesn't look amazing is like saying TLOU looks 'ok' - obvious bait or bias.
That base cave dweller-ism!Because it was the stronger console.
Games like TLOU don't look good because of the PS3. They look good despite of it. Naughty Dog do great work. I would put Halo and Rockstar in the top 10 for sure.
Okay.. while the thread is still open.. The statement above makes as much sense as a jellyfish living on the surface of the sun.
Games like TLOU don't look good because of the PS3. They look good despite of it. Naughty Dog do great work. I would put Halo and Rockstar in the top 10 for sure.
So you're saying MS purposefully underfunded their first party studios, so they didn't make the best looking games possible, even though they were watching their sales lead slowly dwindle to the point they ended up in 3rd place?...The 360 was the more powerful console marginally.
I have no doubt the 360 would've surpassed or matched Sony's first party efforts if they dumped the money into it, but they simply did not need to as they were beating Sony in the biggest market for so long.
The PS3 wasn't great hardware wise. It took every trick in Naughty Dogs book to make the games look that good. They had to hand off graphics duties to the Cell. I think Naughty Dog could have made those games on the 360 without compromising anything.
This thread has been very civil not sure why you think it will be closed.
I was reading this crazy history about the PS3 originally not having GPU and was Naughty Dog who proved to Sony Japan how absurd this going to be. One of reasons why the PS3 was delayed from 2005.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9yOjB95gb0
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/08/playstation-3-was-delayed-originally-planned-for-2005
Bonus: The PS3 is Weird (A Tale of the Cell Processor)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZrDIgQB_ns&t=107s
Didn't PS3 lack a proper scaler? Which could quite affect the image quality, depending on your screen.