Am. Football games 2008 PS3/X360

[swanlee]

I'm just TIRED of people giving the PS3 a pass, and saying well we need to wait 3-4 years to really judge the PS3. Please don't be to hard on the PS3 it's hard to develop for so we need to WAIT. Please WAIT before you compare the PS3 to the 360 cause that is un fair to the PS3.

The games coming out right NOW for the PS3 are just as important and maybe more important than what is going to happen with the PS3 3-4 years from now. If the PS3 doesn't show people that it's worth 200$ more than the 360 people are not going to buy it and so far they are not buying it.

I'm sorry but as soon as people could buy the PS3 and as soon as people could buy games for it, the PS3 is completely fair game on comparisons and being criticized.

It's obvious that the 360 is currently out performing the PS3, how many multi plat games have to come out that run worse on the PS3 before people start realizing this is a serious trend? How many games have to get delayed for the PS3 to also see this trend?

The way Sony has acted and deceived their customers they do not deserve a break on comparisons.

When the 360 launched it's launch games were compared to PS3 CG movies from E3 05. The 360 got blasted for not living up to CG movies that didn't even show actual gameplay. Sony was all arrogant with their Xbox 1.5 statements. How fair was that? At least the PS3 and it's games are getting compared with actual REAL on the shelf games, yet others somehow claim this is unfair?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The games coming out right NOW for the PS3 are just as important and maybe more important than what is going to happen with the PS3 3-4 years from now.

That's a valid argument, but a different one to deciding which platform has the most powerful hardware overall, which your original point was. Regards that original point, you ahve to wait! Nothing you can do about that. Regards your latter complaint, just go get a 360! If the PS3 can't 'prove' itself for whatever reasons, then it deserves to miss the sales.

 

[Love_In_Rio]

The developers itself... they can tell anything to prove that ps3 with the cell can do things that xbox360 can´t but if i can remember the lead producer of Assassin Creed told that the main diference between x360 and ps3 version is just the I.A. Sounds strange because the "main" advantage of ps3 is the cpu raw power for processing physics and A.I that´s a CPU hog.

For eye candy, the ps3 advantage is the enormous SPE´s vertices transform power. Killzone 2 will tell us about it.

 

[archangelmorph]

If the PS3 can't 'prove' itself for whatever reasons, then it deserves to miss the sales.

No hardware can "prove itself"..

It's up to the developers..

The problem is that the vast majority of us don't have the budgets/time to spend pulling all that power out of a system like the PS3 that requires us to work so hard to get at it..

Face facts swanlee, the Xbox360 games are looking great today because all that extra oomph under the hood is not only less of a complete headache to leverage, but has the priveledge of having probably a little more dedication from some due to the fact that the current state of the market makes the investment all the more lucrative in the short term over current PS3 development..

I find it rather annoying when people try to imply that comparing both consoles in terms of real-world hardware potential (by using the state of multiplatform-games as the basis for such an arguement) is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when it isn't..

& if one is going to even attempt to make such an inference without even taking into consideration the financial/commercial factors [of the arguements presented; in this case being the current state of multiplatform development] then that idea is even more rediculous..!

--------------------------------------------------

Imagine a scenario where we have only the PS3 and the Wii.. If the vast majority of multiplatform developers work hard to leverage every bit of the Wii's hardware (using years of experience and prior knowledge of the GC hardware, single-threaded programming and capable development schedules afforded by the financial security of a hypothetically large install base and high consumer attach rate), and on the other had you have the vast majority of PS3 developers opting to (under the pressure of an extremely tight development schedule caused by high financial risk of the platform which isn't selling very well at all) utilise only the PPE and the most basic RSX functionality in order to get the projects completed on time, thus resulting in a version of the same game which, although HD, looks slightly less attractive visually than it's Wii counterpart..

Does this somehow mean that the Wii is "better" than the PS3? is it "coincidentally more powerful"? is it "performing better"?

Or it is more of a factor of a culmination of elements which restrict PS3 developers (not wholly dedicated to the platform for a great number of reasons) from leveraging the hardware enough to really show it off?

THIS is why trying to derrive such conclusions based on simply observing how a title looks across one platform to the next without properly considering both the issues/influences of that title's development and ignoring the fundamental differences (and derrived constraints thereof) between the two platforms is both stupid, misinformed and pointless..

 

[22psi]

I just want to chime in and say that the two consoles are closer in power than most will want to believe. PS3 will have more cpu oomph, 360 will have more gpu oomph, I think we are fairly certain of that by now. In the end... the games will be extremely close, so close that the masses will not be able to tell except that they will look at the price of entry to tell them which is better.

EA said themselves they have dedicated teams for both 360 and PS3 versions of their premier titles which do share assets and technical info. If EA doesn't get the PS3 version to 60fps next year then we'll have more ammo.

Right here and right now, the 360 version of most muli-plat games are better.

 

[inefficient]

Since we don't have benchmarks all we got is games, and since these are consoles not home computers game comparisons is BY FAR the most relevant thing we can compare the two with.

Or you can try to educate yourself and actually try to understand the issues.

But sure, uneducated comparisons are certainly the easier route.

 

[Neb]

I get the feeling that whenever the PS3 version (multiplatform or similar game) of a game looks 'worse' than the xbox360 version then it is a badly done port/unoptimized game. BUT if the PS3 version looks better then it automagically is a good port/optimized game...

Lets wait until E3 and see a bit more, especially the soon to be released games from PS3 before dipping our fingers in the soup!

EDIT: Oh and it ain't next-gen if it lacks AA and AF! //

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I get the feeling that whenever the PS3 version (multiplatform or similar game) of a game looks 'worse' than the xbox360 version then it is a badly done port/unoptimized game. BUT if the PS3 version looks better then it automagically is a good port/optimized game...

Lets wait until E3 and see a bit more, especially the soon to be released games from PS3 before dipping our fingers in the soup!

EDIT: Oh and it ain't next-gen if it lacks AA and AF! //

My feeling is slightly different. Whenever there is a crappy PS3 version, its lazy devs and bad ports. Whenever the PS3 is doing something nice, its "the amazing power of the cell architecture"(tm) and it cannot be done on the X360.

Motorstorm, according to some people here, apparently is proof of that X360 cannot do mud deformation...

 

[archangelmorph]

Or you can try to educate yourself and actually try to understand the issues.

But sure, uneducated comparisons are certainly the easier route.

Exactly..

Swanlee if you feel you need to compare the visual quality of video games across platforms as a "perfect indication" of hardware capability then shit! You really have no idea.. Plus I can't believe I spent a good 30 mins on my last post in an attempt to try and explain something to you and you respond with arguements of which i've already explained why they don't work in real life..

In your own little world sure! the Xbox360 can be the most powerful console in the universe!

But come back down to earth, get a brain for the science of the subject and do some reading and you'll soon realise that you don't need multi-platform games to "prove" that hardware A is technically more powerful than hardware B

Heck you don't even need a game.. If you did then by that logic both RSX AND Xenos are "more powerful than nvidia's G80 purely because there are no games "released" which "prove" G80's technical superiority".

Heck we could even go further than that and claim that PS3 is more powerful than IBM's blue gene because that particular multi-million-dollar supercomputer doesn't have any games (available or in development) for it at all!!

 

[archangelmorph]

My feeling is slightly different. Whenever there is a crappy PS3 version, its lazy devs and bad ports. Whenever the PS3 is doing something nice, its "the amazing power of the cell architecture"(tm) and it cannot be done on the X360.

Motorstorm, according to some people here, apparently is proof of that X360 cannot do mud deformation...

These ideas are irrelevant..

Nobody has stated anything in relation to bad, lazy devs nor have they blamed the hardware for sh***y ports/versions of multiplatform games..

I can only see so far intelligent people downplaying the idea that hardware comparisons can be made based on the IQ of multi-platform games full stop..

Do you have a problem with this idea too?

 

[Afrikan]

This is an apple to oranges comparison. There is a *huge* difference between an indoor game vs an outdoor game with regards to how much rendering power is needed. Making an indoor sports game run at 60fps is cake compared to an outdoor arena title. Aside from some obvious elements like needing far more geometry for things crowd, city scapes, large arenas, etc, the lighting is also far more involved. You also have to deal with weather, sky, and on and on.

for what it is worth, MLB The Show runs at 60fps....not 1080p native but *upscaled* I believe......

by the way, I enjoy your contribution to this thread please continue....... I just hope the mods don't lock it because of some kids......

this B3D not Gamespot

 

[Todd33]

Would you put Dead Rising up there? It’s surely pushing more geometry than any other released game, with 4xAA, great motion blur and DoF effects and fantastic texture quality. It's one of the few next-gen games to amaze me.

Yes! Dead Rising looked and played great, but the save system killed it for me. GRAW2 was another (though it had frame rate issues) that looked great, very "next gen".

I also think Crackdown is amazing, considering the draw distance and amount of stuff on screen. That's my current game I'm playing and since the Halo 3 beta is over I picked it up for $20 on eBay in mint condition

 

[NovemberMike]

I agree with Swanlee in a sense (I hate list wars, personally). The fact is that the Cell is undeniably more powerful than the 360 at certain things, like graphing or solving large equations. Sony is selling it under the Playstation brand, though, which means that it has to be noticably (however noticable $200 is) better than the 360 in real games, and we have seen nothing of the kind so far. Sure, there is a possibility that over time it could be "unlocked" or something and simply take off, but what I have seen from multi-platform devs suggests that there is a fairly even split between the two systems (PS3 being better at CPU stuff, 360 being better at GPU stuff).

Anyway, even a first party to first party comparison this year is useless. Look at recent and upcoming games from MGS (Forza 2, Shadowrun [which I personally think has the best AI I have ever seen], Halo 3 and Too Human) and you will see a wealth of games that have a significant multiplayer presence. Sony, on the other hand, is full of games like Heavenly Sword, Lair and Uncharted, which have no multiplayer. The most impressive games have always been singleplayer, which means that Sony games looking better would be logical even on the same systems.

 

[Todd33]

Anyway, even a first party to first party comparison this year is useless. Look at recent and upcoming games from MGS (Forza 2, Shadowrun [which I personally think has the best AI I have ever seen], Halo 3 and Too Human) and you will see a wealth of games that have a significant multiplayer presence. Sony, on the other hand, is full of games like Heavenly Sword, Lair and Uncharted, which have no multiplayer. The most impressive games have always been singleplayer, which means that Sony games looking better would be logical even on the same systems.

Are you saying if a game has no MP, they somehow are better looking? Even if that were true, you left a lot of games out that make the systems have less contrast. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Ratchet and Clank, Warhawk are a few. I think the story driven SP focus of some of the upcoming Sony games is coincidence.

 

[StefanS]

Okay, guys!

Be civil in here, or I'll be very angry with you and I'll send you a letter telling you how angry I am.

 

[NovemberMike]

Are you saying if a game has no MP, they somehow are better looking? Even if that were true, you left a lot of games out that make the systems have less contrast. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Ratchet and Clank, Warhawk are a few. I think the story driven SP focus of some of the upcoming Sony games is coincidence.

Development is a zero sum game. Adding multiplayer to a game takes time and money away from other parts. If it wasn't like this then Uncharted, Mass Effect and Lair would all have multiplayer.

Take Halo for example. If it was a singleplayer only game, all they would have to worry about would be that the levels flowed well and worked on the 360's Hardware. With the possibility of multiplayer co-op, they have to make sure that the game is balanced at each level for however many players are in, they have to take into account that the players might be at drastically different points in the level and have to calculate collisions and physics and AI for those areas, and they have to design the levels so they don't get a ton of lag (this is "singleplayer" only).

 

[rekator]

Yes! Dead Rising looked and played great, but the save system killed it for me. GRAW2 was another (though it had frame rate issues) that looked great, very "next gen".

I also think Crackdown is amazing, considering the draw distance and amount of stuff on screen. That's my current game I'm playing and since the Halo 3 beta is over I picked it up for $20 on eBay in mint condition

Curiously I have the same idea…

 

[Todd33]

Development is a zero sum game. Adding multiplayer to a game takes time and money away from other parts. If it wasn't like this then Uncharted, Mass Effect and Lair would all have multiplayer.

Take Halo for example. If it was a singleplayer only game, all they would have to worry about would be that the levels flowed well and worked on the 360's Hardware. With the possibility of multiplayer co-op, they have to make sure that the game is balanced at each level for however many players are in, they have to take into account that the players might be at drastically different points in the level and have to calculate collisions and physics and AI for those areas, and they have to design the levels so they don't get a ton of lag (this is "singleplayer" only).

Makes sense. I hardly play MP on most games (unless it's co-op), so sometimes I wish they spent more time on story and content. I like the idea of buying a MP only game and a good SP game seperate. I can do without the tacked on MP that most games have, I'd rather play something like Warhawk or Battlefield for dedicated MP.

Some games do both well (GRAW, RS:V, R:FOM, Halo 2/3, etc.), but most games have MP just to have a marketing check-box checked and after two weeks no one is playing it.

 

[tha_con]

My take is that neither of these developers are lazy, untalented, or uninformed.

What I think it is, personally, it just that their approach to multiplatform development hasn't yet matured, and the end result is a bumpy road when it comes to multiplat games. Hopefully they can get it tuned out for next year though.

I find it extremely hard to believe that any of the differences are directly related to hardware, rather, it is the approach the developers are taking when making multiplatform games, given how different the two consoles are this time around.

 

[iceberg187]

Anyway, even a first party to first party comparison this year is useless. Look at recent and upcoming games from MGS (Forza 2, Shadowrun [which I personally think has the best AI I have ever seen], Halo 3 and Too Human) and you will see a wealth of games that have a significant multiplayer presence. Sony, on the other hand, is full of games like Heavenly Sword, Lair and Uncharted, which have no multiplayer. The most impressive games have always been singleplayer, which means that Sony games looking better would be logical even on the same systems.

Same thing I said right here

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1027504&postcount=139