8 ROPs on the RSX. Bad engineering decision?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you mean only on PS3, then I agree. If you mean on PS3 and 360, then I don't. I finished both Mass Effect and Uncharted and if you ask me, Mass Effect looks better. I know, it's blasphemy to say that here, but there, I said it. Why do I mention that? Because people post here with broad comments like "To the average consumer PS3 will offer the BEST console graphics in all genres of games." which they have no way of knowing if its even remotely true.

I finished both Mass Effect and Uncharted as well, and while I prefer the art direction of Mass Effect over Uncharted, Uncharted graphics technically romps all over Mass Effect. (Mass Effect romps all over Uncharted in terms of player engagement, however.)

Taking another example, PS3 exclusive MLB The Show is the best looking baseball game on any platform this season. I certainly notice a trend. The highest graphical peaks hit so far this generation have been by PS3 exclusives, IMO.
 
Ease of 360 development is first and foremost due to a good gpu that helps you instead of hindering you when making video games. It sounds like an absurd thing to say,
No, it's perfectly reasonable and understandable.
but use both sometime and it'll be crystal clear what I mean.

By far that is the main reason for ease of development. Secondly would be great tools from day one. Thirdly would be great support. If you've ever had to use Sony tools you would think child birth is easy in comparison. Fourthly would be the year early to market lead time. Now some will argue that the years head start should be #1, but it would have been worthless if the other three items I mentioned didn't come along with it.

So, Sony looses on all fronts. :)

Anyhow thanks for the response.
 
If you mean only on PS3, then I agree. If you mean on PS3 and 360, then I don't. I finished both Mass Effect and Uncharted and if you ask me, Mass Effect looks better. I know, it's blasphemy to say that here, but there, I said it..

I too played Mass Effect and it looks great despite its graphical glitches that should not be there in a game launched on a two year old console.

However what amazes me silly is that I also played Knights of the Old Republic, KOTOR The Sith Lords and Jade Empire and the reality of the graphics goes all the back to KOTOR 2003 with that game being able to display facial expressions on characters and lots of details along all of the older Dx8 level effects and to no surprise Mass Effect is not that different, yet those older games had fewer graphical glitches. So whole ME may look amazing to a person who never played on XBox 1 for me and others who noticed the game failed to eclipse the older console.

I'd make one correction to that. Nvidia made the best possible move. They took their older architecture that was on the way out and inked the deal with it. Now they can sell 50 million+ units of aging 7 series hardware, and at the same time milk the pc market with their newer 8 and 9 series hardware. On NVidia's part it was pure business genius.

Sony on the other hand likely had no choice and got stuck with whatever NVidia offered.

Really? I wonder how could that be in any way possible since PS3 was announced in 2005, Nv40 at 130nm had been released in April 2004, G70/Nv47 at 110nm was only available for launch in June 2005 and G71 at 90nm in March 2006 of course TSMC is the chip foundry that fabbed the 7 series and yet they were only able to fab the G80 8800 at 90nm for a November 2006 launch and premium price of admission.

And please lets keep in mind that Sony's own Japan based fabs are resposible for making and validating RSX, they do not fab chips for use in PC graphics cards or TSMC would have started WWIII.

Now I really want to know if you really, trully, realistically believe that Microsoft would have allowed Nvidia to give Sony a GPU that would be able to boast compliance with Direct X 10 for the 2006 or even a 2007 launch home console like the PS3 and please state your reasons why.

After all Direct X is Microsoft's baby, they clearly do not make and design GPUs, just the compliance to their cash cow API but just think of the ramifications to follow if a non Microsoft entity like Sony would have had a better than G70 Nvidia GPU... like the only obvious choice of G80/G92.
 
Taking another example, PS3 exclusive MLB The Show is the best looking baseball game on any platform this season. I certainly notice a trend. The highest graphical peaks hit so far this generation have been by PS3 exclusives, IMO.

Thats only because it's hard to finish a baseball game when you lose over half the team months prior to ship. But that's all I'll say about that :(
 
Then there is Ryu Ga Gotoku Kenzan (what may end up being called Yakuza 3 for US release) that game's level of graphics just have not been displayed by xenos.
???

I agree that the other games you mentioned looked awesome but I am still curious why you bring up Yakuza 3 as a graphical showcase on the PS3.


I ve seen and played the game but it has nothing special in terms of visuals :???:
 
???

I agree that the other games you mentioned looked awesome but I am still curious why you bring up Yakuza 3 as a graphical showcase on the PS3.


I ve seen and played the game but it has nothing special in terms of visuals :???:

Since you believe in your opinion that it is nothing special in terms of visuals can you tell me why you believe that and I will tell you why I bring it up.
 
A 7800 GTX or any PC videocard for that matter will still be limited greatly by the API being Direct X and Open GL unlike a home console like Playstation 2 and PS3.

But I doubt API will affect ROP perfomance and VRAM throughoutput which is the clear advantage of the 7800GTX/7900GT.

The engineering decision to go with 8 Rops and 128Bit bus may also have alot to do with technological limitations for a product that would be expected to have a high penetration in homes world wide and in different temperature and power consuming zones.

Money, time, heat, production stability.

I personally feel that Sony and Nvidia made the best possible choice in basing the RSX on Nv47/G70 and the fact that its Sony, NOT TSMC that is fabricating RSX GPUs leads me to believe that Sony was being very carefull to make sure that their GPU would work to the best of their specs and not come out half baked out the oven.

I think so to and thinking that the PS3 was up at 600$ and people felt it was to high of a price, To expect it to have a more complex GPU would just have increased the price. Do the best within fitted budget.

As for Ryu Ga Gotoku Kenzan (Yakuza 3), here:

http://gamersyde.com/game_1378_en.html

They have 1280x720 resolution MP4 videos that I have downloaded, put in a key and put into my PS3 to basically see the closest thing to running the actual game.

I've seen HQ screenshots at fullsize of the game and I still stand by my observations. Artistically nice, technially not so. Projected shadows, prebaked shadows/lighting, less than stellar polygon amount etc. Such things makes it not a contender for best graphics and the other platforms has lots of games that look far better than Yakuza 3.

Of course since Yakuza 3 does not feature an armored westerner holding a rifle or a hooded assasin with sharp hidden blades it may have a hard time appealing to most people outside of Japan and maybe Asian countries since the game deals with a historical setting that may seem alien to those not familiar with it or used to seeing it but I don't think that it stops the game from being impressive as a first effort, then again I am not sure what you would expect an impressive effort would be, that all games become FPSs?

I am not talking about gameplay style nor type of game. I am strictly talking about technicall stuff and what the game does technically. You see to be able to say a game is graphically superior to what other platforms do you have to go technical. Art doesn't do it becouse it is up to each one and their taste. BTW did I say I loved Jade Empire for xbox? The only game I replayed 5 times.

Then there is Ryu Ga Gotoku Kenzan (what may end up being called Yakuza 3 for US release) that game's level of graphics just have not been displayed by xenos.

It has been by launch games, matched...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since you believe in your opinion that it is nothing special in terms of visuals can you tell me why you believe that and I will tell you why I bring it up.

The animation is pretty much old gen, the lighting is not dynamic (looks flat too), textures arent very detailed (I am not even sure if normal mapping exists in the game), models dont look to be made out of enough polygons, I vent seen physics and the framerate is low.

These are the things that come in mind currently from the demo

Is there something I missed from the visuals?
 
The fact that studios with infinite budgets, unlimited time and/or preferential support are able to eek performance out of rsx+cell equivalent to what can be achieved by more typical studios with far less time and far less money on xenos alone hardly indicates that Sony devs are aiming higher.

Microsoft has been throwing tons of money at some developers too. So I don't think the "infinite" adjective apply only to Sony developers. But really...

I doubt the "MLB The Show" guys have unlimited $$$ and time since they released the game in the same time frame as other devs. Yet the visuals and animation are stunning. May be we should visit Insomniac and Incognito. They seem very productive to me too with several follow up games and enhancements.

I think what these guys have is focus (on only PS3). Devs like Polyphony and NaughtyDog are clearly aiming for the sky even in their first PS3 game. At the same time, cross platform devs like Infinity Ward, CodeMaster, Criterion and Capcom aimed for feature parity between the platforms. They all turn out well too, but their visuals are diluted across > 1 consoles.

In general, I don't buy the unlimited time and resources = high quality output argument. The amount of money they spent is typically a function of their track records and projected income. They have to be good first before the money is there. It can certainly backfire (See Lair). In all of these cases, I believe the people made the differences. We should give these people credits (e.g., Epic is a great developer too).

EDIT: I replied because I seriously don't think they spent lot's of money just to eek out PS3 performance. They spent the money because they want to realize a vision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you mean only on PS3, then I agree. If you mean on PS3 and 360, then I don't. I finished both Mass Effect and Uncharted and if you ask me, Mass Effect looks better. I know, it's blasphemy to say that here, but there, I said it. Why do I mention that? Because people post here with broad comments like "To the average consumer PS3 will offer the BEST console graphics in all genres of games." which they have no way of knowing if its even remotely true.

The real question is, which of those games has more technical issues and graphical glitches?


As you're a developer, I'd be interested to hear your take on the game rendering resolutions; Why there are more exclusive titles on the 360 side, that are rendered at lower resolutions than 720p?
 
But I doubt API will affect ROP perfomance and VRAM throughoutput which is the clear advantage of the 7800GTX 512/7900GT.

The API that the PC game is written for will always only benefit the gamer who upgrades his graphic cards, thats the way things work in PC gamer land reguardless of how much game devs improve.

Case in point me, I have an AMD Athlon XP 3200+, 1.5GB ram, Nforce 2 mobo, BFG GeForce 6800GT and thanks to the last WHQL Win XP drivers I can run Crysis at medium quality settings customized at 1024x768 and the game is very much playable with frame rate dips depending how heavy things get, if I go to low Q settings, the game although still impressive becomes really fast but its pretty obvious that my single core 2.3Ghz cpu and Nv40 even at 370Mhz is just not enough.

However I also know that on the other side of the current spectrum, a person with the latest parts, Intel 9770Extreme 3.2Ghz, 2GB ram and latest graphics card will still have frame dips because they can enable higher quality settings, so obviously it makes sense to get 2009 CPU and GPU.

But the PS3 with all of its "limited" non upgradable hardware has to make do with what they have so for some game dev to rely in using general dev tools and not bother to make proper and efficient use of Cell+RSX so any complaints about only having 8Rops seem flawed.

Its pretty obvious that reguardless of all the different consoles that Sony would prefer you to be PS3 only, Microsoft would prefer you to be only on XBox 360 (and PC if you want) and Nintendo would prefer you to make Wii only games but these so called devs who complain about the short coming of a console when all they make are multiplatform games seem silly when there are devs like Infinity Ward and Capcom and maybe Rockstar with GTA4 who strive for crossplatfor parity.

It just goes to show you that things have not changed since last gens, the platform specific titles with the best effort will outshine the multi effort always.

I've seen HQ screenshots at fullsize of the game and I still stand by my observations. Artistically nice, technially not so. Projected shadows, prebaked shadows/lighting, less than stellar polygon amount etc. Such things makes it not a contender for best graphics and the other platforms has lots of games that look far better than Yakuza 3.

I am not talking about gameplay style nor type of game. I am strictly talking about technicall stuff and what the game does technically. You see to be able to say a game is graphically superior to what other platforms do you have to go technical. Art doesn't do it becouse it is up to each one and their taste. BTW did I say I loved Jade Empire for xbox? The only game I replayed 5 times.

It has been by launch games, matched...

But you do mention Jade Empire which only was about art direction as all of the basic graphical technology was established in KOTOR 1.

And I am curious what game matched Yakuza 3?

The animation is pretty much old gen, the lighting is not dynamic (looks flat too), textures arent very detailed (I am not even sure if normal mapping exists in the game), models dont look to be made out of enough polygons, I vent seen physics and the framerate is low.

These are the things that come in mind currently from the demo

Is there something I missed from the visuals?

I believe I noticed some type of normal mapping during a boss fight enviroment, the lighting seems to do its job, though not as flamboyant, the animation... old gen...? in all the footage I have seen, the dramatic poses the characters make seem to be as good as they could be for a current gen game on a one year and 4 month old console and the polygon count seems pretty damn impressive from my perspective as there are alot of things being rendered, lots of NPCs crowd the streets, lots of objects inside houses and outside and the framerate for this type of game where you are not always obligated to do the same things seems to be just right for its effort otherwise if the framerate is low the game would not be playable right?

But I respect your opinion if you are not impressed and I will tell you what impressed me the most and hope you understand, however I will not force you to understand since its something I noticed.

Basically the game, aside from giving you multiple options in things to do and gameplay as well as displaying these things and recreating that sense of a living world that Shenmue and Yakuza attempted, this game goes into displaying some really highly detailed character skin, specially in the face where most of the drama is delivered, resulting in characters that seem to convey cinematic emotion unlike ever before...and that includes last gen

There is a cinematic drama story trailer out there I will try to post a link to show what I mean but keeping in mind that this game is trying to carry all these elements and it does so in AAA quality.

[gt]29957[/gt]

Bear in mind that this trailer in 7 minutes long in Japanese dialogue so if you are not able to tolerate not understanding what they are saying please be patient and watch how all of the graphical effects come together.

[gt]31748[/gt]

This one is 1 minute 30 seconds and shows plenty of graphical effects working together to impressive effect however I prefer that you watch the 7 min long trailer.

Also as for you having played the game demo, I would never judge a game's technical graphics based on a demo, I would judge it based on the final retail game itself specially since the demo was released in January when the game was released in March in Japan.

How this game fits into the whole 8 Rops issue, clearly this game is displaying alot of geometry, and 3d effects so saying that "x looks flat" does not represent the entire game.

Now I personally have watched most of Akira Kurosawa's Samurai and medival setting films and this game comes close to being a fully playable real time film specially considering the the game does not use CGI cinemas and instead is using the graphics engine and this is a fact since Sega has done this before with Shenmue in the ancient Dreamcast.
 
Well if you want to get a clearer picture you will have to download the game from the Japanese Playstation Store and play it.

The cinematic trailers look very nice and are edited to impress but the actual game is far from being that impressive. The characters probably switch to lower polygon models during gameplay and the gameplay animation has no relation to what is shown in these trailers. There are some specific motion captured animations that look very nice but these are generated in special occasions during fights. Everything else moves like a PS2 game

I doubt the retail version was improved dramatically from what was shown in the demo

Uncharted, Heavenly Sword and even many 360 games surpass visually what is shown in these trailers too.
 
A 7800 GTX or any PC videocard for that matter will still be limited greatly by the API
being Direct X and Open GL unlike a home console like Playstation 2 and PS3.

Not only them you've forget some Dinosoft's OS kernel process handle by
Windows OS and a lot of sub programs running.


Microsoft and the Open GL board do not make graphic processors, ATI and Nvidia do
, Matrox, S3, Videologic, and 3d labs used to so beliveing that a GPU will be limited
by cut down hardware from a PC part is alot like believing Direct X marketing hype
from Microsoft.

I think DirectX was the best way for Dinosoft for earning yours, devs and every PC gamers
fans a lot money. Since Windows 95 Direct X API through Windows Vista with Direct X 10.1
How many dollars were you all spend for Dinosoft?

Now its true that PS3 uses a custom version of Open GL code that can be ported to PC if the developer feels like it and it may as well be able to use Direct X dev tools since the
GPU comes from the PC side of things but doing the latter is probably the reason some
like to use terms like "lazy developers"

Dinosoft's vision in longterm was to destroy console industry and convert all of games
to Windows Games
. Now If Wii and PS3 lose this round. Dinosoft's will huge success for
its target and your all money.

The engineering decision to go with 8 Rops and 128Bit bus may also have alot to do with.
technological limitations for a product that would be expected to have a high penetration
in homes world wide and in different temperature and power consuming zones.

I do love the idea that many keep wishing for having had a G80 instead though,
specially when things like power consumption and heat thermals don't seem to be
considered, at 90nm it would have been impossible for Sony to ask to have a 680
Million transistor GPU and at 65nm it would have been a bad engineering decision
since it would have made more sense to go with G92 but so what? the console
would have been more powerfull but it would have been released in 2008
realisticaly and by then Nintendo would be going for a 2 year lead and XBox 360
for a 3 year lead with price drops and fence sitting gamers breaking down for one,
it would have been unpredictable and unlikely if people would have really been
willing to pay for a PS3 launched in 2008 instead, even with undisputed
technological power.

If PS3 consist with G80 may be I'll be better position for Sony to industry.
G80 will make clear that PS3 was the best graphical performace console
for all threes. People will easily to take it more than the present version.

However I think something that Sony fault was lay-off Ken Kutaragi and his staffs.
Kutaragi was PlayStation logo trademark for games industry. I believe that if
Kutaragi remain as SCEI CEO now. You'll see PS3 in special model like his vision
since PS3 announced. Maybe we'll see PS3 Plus or somekind of extension version
for power use. PS3 Plus may consist with Cell BE full option (8 SPE) 1 GB XDR2 DRAM
@ 6.4GHz + GeForce 9800GX2 + 1 GB GDDR4 + 8X/24X/48X BD-ROM/DVD/CD Drive
+ 500GB SSHDD in cost around 1000-1500 USD with pre-installed Fedora Core 6.


I personally feel that Sony and Nvidia made the best possible choice in basing the
RSX on Nv47/G70 and the fact that its Sony, NOT TSMC that is fabricating RSX GPUs
leads me to believe that Sony was being very carefull to make sure that their GPU
would work to the best of their specs and not come out half baked out the oven.

In fact Sony may use outter source like TSMC to produce RSX for PS3. However
the cost for specific chip like RSX only may too high for Sony to use it. CMOS process
that its style was better choice for reduce cost.

Its amazing to me that the PS2 graphics chip would at best be considered a 1997 or
98 ish level technology that benefited from process shrinks to launch at the desired
clock speed and I see the same happening with RSX being that Nvidia's Nv30 was
considered a failed design (for PC use) and Nvidia worked hard to make Nv35 a much
better, more efficient performer that by the time they made it to Nv40 they managed
to best their last effort twice.

PS2's Graphic Synthesizer was software rasterization style GPU. In term of performace
it prefer NEC PowerVR on those dreamcast rather than it.
 
The API that the PC game is written for will always only benefit the gamer who upgrades his graphic cards, thats the way things work in PC gamer land reguardless of how much game devs improve.

If the game is written to bloom out fully at DX9 or DX10 then you need DX9 or DX10 HW to "harvest in" all the eye-candy. But you also get better and better graphics over time as the bar is rised constantly. And a GPU will last you several years and be able to do highest graphic settings in games. Just look at how long the 8800 series has been out, crushing any game except Crysis at v.high. On consoles you get graphical improvment but nowhere near as big as PC games for each year, with or without mods.
Each year the gap is even bigger, this year it being massive whether mods is used or not and Crysis delivers fresh fruitcakes.

Case in point me, I have an AMD Athlon XP 3200+, 1.5GB ram, Nforce 2 mobo, BFG GeForce 6800GT and thanks to the last WHQL Win XP drivers I can run Crysis at medium quality settings customized at 1024x768 and the game is very much playable with frame rate dips depending how heavy things get, if I go to low Q settings, the game although still impressive becomes really fast but its pretty obvious that my single core 2.3Ghz cpu and Nv40 even at 370Mhz is just not enough.

But remember that the HW you use is last-gen HW. You dont expect a PS2 or xbox to run PS3 or xbox360 games well? Granted the HW is a bit newer than either last-gen console but then it also runs this gen games acceptable. ;)

But the PS3 with all of its "limited" non upgradable hardware has to make do with what they have so for some game dev to rely in using general dev tools and not bother to make proper and efficient use of Cell+RSX so any complaints about only having 8Rops seem flawed.

OF course they gotto do the best they can with what they have. Doesn't Xenos also have 8 rops though EDRAM might help out in some stuff?

Its pretty obvious that reguardless of all the different consoles that Sony would prefer you to be PS3 only, Microsoft would prefer you to be only on XBox 360 (and PC if you want) and Nintendo would prefer you to make Wii only games but these so called devs who complain about the short coming of a console when all they make are multiplatform games seem silly when there are devs like Infinity Ward and Capcom and maybe Rockstar with GTA4 who strive for crossplatfor parity.

I think all strive for parity but it costs money and takes many working hours. I think they set up a schedule and calculate how much time/working hours they can give to each platform. Then they do the best they can.

Say me, those multiplatform games that look better on on x platform than the other platforms. Would you put those devs next to Capcom, Rockstar etc in crossplatform parity if they downgraded all the versions to the worst looking version? Becouse that would give you equal looking versions of the same game and parity.

It just goes to show you that things have not changed since last gens, the platform specific titles with the best effort will outshine the multi effort always.

True but it is not always by that much of a difference. Btw that goes for all platforms including PC.

But you do mention Jade Empire which only was about art direction as all of the basic graphical technology was established in KOTOR 1.

Jade Empire had great art but becouse it already used effects that other games have doesn't mean it is less technically impressive. And I dont know how that relates to Yakuza 3 since that game uses last-gen rendering techniques used in a lot of old games.

And I am curious what game matched Yakuza 3?

Kameo, Dead Rising, GR Advanced Warfighter, without problems techncially. Art? well thats is more a individual taste thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the game is written to bloom out fully at DX9 or DX10 then you need DX9 or DX10 HW to "harvest in" all the eye-candy.

But remember that the HW you use is last-gen HW. You dont expect a PS2 or xbox to run PS3 or xbox360 games well? Granted the HW is a bit newer than either last-gen console but then it also runs this gen games acceptable. ;).

My CPU was released in 2003 as overclocked year 2000 technology and my GPU runs at 370Mhz core and is 2004 level GPU tech, yet it runs Crysis to impressive effect at medium quality as I stated, and I personally build my own systems and instal and set up my Win XP, I do confess I tried Vista and it ran but it slowed too much so I went back to XP.

OF course they gotto do the best they can with what they have. Doesn't Xenos also have 8 rops though EDRAM might help out in some stuff?.

It did not help a first party dev that had a 3 plus year lead to make Halo 3 take full advantage of that hardware and instead they lowered the resolution and kept the game looking too similar to the old XBox 1 game.

I think all strive for parity but it costs money and takes many working hours. I think they set up a schedule and calculate how much time/working hours they can give to each platform. Then they do the best they can.

Say me, those multiplatform games that look better on on x platform than the other platforms. Would you put those devs next to Capcom, Rockstar etc in crossplatform parity if they downgraded all the versions to the worst looking version? Becouse that would give you equal looking versions of the same game and parity.

People did point out the textures and resolution of COD4, I could also point out how the gameplay and graphics have hardly changed since COD1 however the biggest difference is that in WWII they did not have helicopters.

Jade Empire had great art but becouse it already used effects that other games have doesn't mean it is less technically impressive. And I dont know how that relates to Yakuza 3 since that game uses last-gen rendering techniques used in a lot of old games.

The reason Jade Empire and Mass Effect failed has alot to do with how they were game engine enhancements since KOTOR 1 2003, they only added layers of effects for the arts yet JE was supposed to be the third revision of the game engine even if Bioware had only worked on KOTOR 1 and Obsidian on KOTOR 2 TSL, Obsidian did not create the engine, they just worked with it and that game was rushed as it was missing entire story arcs and stages/levels for a holiday release to cash in.

Mass Effect is an even bigger failiure due to the same factors many people have accused Halo 3 of, the game is released after two years of console life, the console boasts 3 CPU cores over a single P3 core, boasts 512MB ram over 64MB and boasts a GPU that has all this power yet resolutions are dropped, graphics glitches are too noticable with pop up textures, collision, etc so either something is wrong with XNA or something is wrong somewhere because even after a year there should not be these problems on a platform specific title.

Kameo, Dead Rising, GR Advanced Warfighter, without problems techncially. Art? well thats is more a individual taste thing.

Kameo, although nice just did not deliver that CGI like cinematic visuals that Ratchet and Clank did. Dead Rising looks dated and simplistic, it has not aged well and GRAW suffers the same fate as there are too many army sims out there that have improved graphically but it is nowhere near Uncharted's graphics.

But you are right, in that its more of a individual taste thing for none of those games have matched the visuals of Yakuza 3, they are nowhere close.

Well if you want to get a clearer picture you will have to download the game from the Japanese Playstation Store and play it.

The cinematic trailers look very nice and are edited to impress but the actual game is far from being that impressive. The characters probably switch to lower polygon models during gameplay and the gameplay animation has no relation to what is shown in these trailers. There are some specific motion captured animations that look very nice but these are generated in special occasions during fights. Everything else moves like a PS2 game

I doubt the retail version was improved dramatically from what was shown in the demo

Uncharted, Heavenly Sword and even many 360 games surpass visually what is shown in these trailers too.

Thanks, your opinion is revealed and I understand it but I have played Uncharted and own Heavenly Sword (got it for free with PS3 offer) and while HS have great cinematic visuals both games are just not in the same league as Yakuza 3 and believe me, Uncharted comes close but it is more action than drama.
 
RR7 is 1080p but GT5P is only about 66% of the way there (1280x1080).
You mean FULL 1080p, because both are 1080p games. Only one is FULL 1080p. You are suppose to count the horizontal lines.
Not for the entire game, just in rendering?
I could have sworn I saw AI, physics, etc segmented amongst the PPE and SPEs/SPUs. I will take another look at the presentation.
 
People did point out the textures and resolution of COD4, I could also point out how the gameplay and graphics have hardly changed since COD1 however the biggest difference is that in WWII they did not have helicopters.

Cod1 to CoD2 is a huge improvement in graphics, to CoD4 a even bigger one.

The reason Jade Empire and Mass Effect failed has alot to do with how they were game engine enhancements since KOTOR 1 2003 .....Mass Effect is an even bigger failiure due to the same factors many people have accused Halo 3 of, the game is released after two years of console life, the console boasts 3 CPU cores over a single P3 core, boasts 512MB ram over 64MB and boasts a GPU that has all this power yet resolutions are dropped, graphics glitches are too noticable with pop up textures, collision, etc so either something is wrong with XNA or something is wrong somewhere because even after a year there should not be these problems on a platform specific title.

How is Mass Effect a failure? I mean it has recieved good critic and has good graphics aside from framerate problems (which so many console games are plagued with). It seems obvious to me that for Halo 3 they sacrificed to much for having top notch lighting. I dont say it was worth it though.

Kameo, although nice just did not deliver that CGI like cinematic visuals that Ratchet and Clank did. Dead Rising looks dated and simplistic, it has not aged well and GRAW suffers the same fate as there are too many army sims out there that have improved graphically but it is nowhere near Uncharted's graphics.

You are asking for a 'atleast matching' xbox360 launch title(s) to yakuza 3 on technical terms. Therefore I dont see why you bring in RC or Uncharted as they are not on topic.

But you are right, in that its more of a individual taste thing for none of those games have matched the visuals of Yakuza 3, they are nowhere close.

Let's agree to disagree then on that point! :smile:
 
I think YAKUZA3 can't beat Uncharted in technicial term.

There're many pre-render around the stages. It cannot compare with uncharted anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top