Very good point. As it is now the xbox360 has the upper hand by a bit.
Am. Football games 2008 PS3/X360
- Thread starter Tap In
- Start date
Very good point. As it is now the xbox360 has the upper hand by a bit.
djskribbles
Legend
it did not have textures downgraded, it had better textures and better AF. if you're referring to the ground textures in that village scene from the gametrailers comparison, someone here at B3D proved that it was just the time of day that caused different lighting on the ground.
and how did it have an EXTRA year of development time, when Bethesda said it took a year to complete the game? Pete Hines in several interviews said that they started working on the game in March 2006 and finished in March 2007.
No that person either hooked a PC up to the TV or used the xbox360 version. The PS3 retail and xbox360 retail versions where compared in a gamespot article some weeks ago.
There one can see that the PS3 ground lacks normal mapping on some locations during the same game hour (I'll digg the link up).
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6171831/p-5.html
djskribbles
Legend
looking back at that thread, i guess you're right. but still, the ps3's textures are better, not worse.
/OT
Not better textures but the use of anisotropic filtering 4-8x on the PS3 version makes the textures look more crisp/sharp and detailed at distance. I personally prefer the PS3 version becouse aniso makes wonders. OT/ :smile:
Actually you see it is the same time of day on both versions, same weather, same location and same textures (except the PS3 version lacking normalmaps on the ground in some places)!
Last edited by a moderator:
djskribbles
Legend
not only is the AF better (like i said) but the textures look better to me as well, not just the ones in the distance, but the ones close up as well.
and actually going through that old oblivion thread, no one proved the poster wrong, you just assumed the shot was taken from a PC or 360... GS could have done the same thing as GT. they don't mention the comparison shots were taken at the same time of day.
anyways... back on topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, these threads always turn out the same...
I don't think the PS3 ever has top prove it's more powerful than the 360, whatever that means. It has to appeal to buyers, either as a BD player , game machine or both. The dry spell for games has already started to end and there are some great games slated for fall/winter - ones that cannot be played on the 360.
As for the effect the deveoper has on the port, just look at Gamespots review of Need for Speed for the Xbox 1 (which I owned).
Are you to argue the PS2 is more "powerful"?
Again, look at Oblivion, their is no doubt that the PS3 looks better, it's in all the reviews. It benefited from dev love (not an "extra" year, that's FUD). It had little to do with "power", Bethesada didn't want to dump a crappy port out they put some love into it. The same could be said comparing the Splinter Cell port versus the new Rainbow Six:Vegas one.
In the short term the Ps3 will get the short end of the port stick, but the install base has the potential to explode with good game buzz and a price reduction. Remember there are tens of millions of Ps2 owner who have yet to make the next gen jump.
That was because of software! Do you not understand the part software plays? Consider one JCB digger with 2 levers and a 40 litre bucket, and another JCB digger with 20 levers, 100 buttons, and a 150 litre bucket that can scoop at the same rate. Set two people with no experience of diggers to use them, and who'll move the most dirt in the first 5 minutes? The one who can work out the machine the fastest, which in this convoluted example is the 2-lever digger. It might take the guy in the super-complex digger an hour just to find how to start the engine (thinking of a Top Gear episode here, so it's not as unlikely as you might think!). But once they've both mastered their machines, who'll be digging faster? The bigger digger of course.
PS3 needs a lot to work out how to use it effectively. This takes time - a lot more time than straight learning the hardware too, because at the same time the devs are learning, they're also having to create games. So they can only spare a bit of effort learning new tricks, and sometimes they'll have to use inefficient methods just to get the product out the doors and in the shops on time. XB is a bad example because MS came out with stellar tools from day 1, basically providing developers with the known PC environment. If you look at PS2 in it's early days versus it's later days, you'll see how much thing improved due to software. The earliest efforts weren't anything like what PS2's peak performance was, yet it took several years to learn and unlock PS2's performance. And compare it to DC at the time, the advantages of PS2's hardware were lost due to the weak software holding it back.
It was a positive move by MS to offer easier development, and it may result in better games overall for the life of the two machines. Devs might never invest the time learning PS3 thoroughly if it never generates the sales needed, so even if PS3 were 10x more powerful, it might always have worse cross-platform games. However, that doesn't mean to say PS3 has lower peak performance! Only that devs aren't getting more performance from it. Those devs who spend time and effort targetting PS3 and trying to get the most from it will be the devs that show the best the hardware can do, and that's where you'll see which platform is 'most powerful' - when the software isn't the limiting factor.
this hands on experience with both machines should not be overlooked.
this should nearly put to rest any assumptions of hardware differences and he accounts for several software differences in his estimations as well.
Good post Tap In.
Can't we all just get along? Competition breeds lower prices and better products. No one should wish for any one company to own the console market. We should all wish for the software of MS along with the hardware engineering of Sony and the creativeness of Nintendo.
Can't we all just get along? Competition breeds lower prices and better products. No one should wish for any one company to own the console market. We should all wish for the software of MS along with the hardware engineering of Sony and the creativeness of Nintendo.
Excellent points. I'm a huge blu-ray fan (have lots of blu-ray movies) and I bought my PS3 initially as a movie player. That gives the PS3 another angle to appeal to buyers as it did with me. The dry spell as you say is almost about over. Likewise, I think the "bad 360 ports" era is close to coming to an end. Also, people will often buy a machine just to play one game, in this case probably heavy hitters like Metal Gear and Final Fantasy. Plus, wait and see what happens once the PS3's price hits $399. I know many who are on the fence waiting for it to hit that mark. And like Todd says, there are still millions of PS2'ers that have yet to make the jump. The PS3 is the logical transition path for them if they have a large PS2 library.
It is not conclusive. The software design and algorithmic aspect cannot be overlooked. Plus Sony did not lend help to the development, which likely skew the design and implementation towards 360 base.
For the past few months, we have also seen joker improved his impression of PS3 (mostly on the Cell side). Within the context of his current game, he may not have the time and luxury to optimize the Cell <-> RSX interaction fully (like first parties). Personally, I don't think a Sports game is as heavy as what we saw on Lair or Heavenly Sword so far.
In my understanding, Joker's main complains are the memory size and the vertex processing bottleneck. nAo has countered these points before. What joker did in these recent post is to reiterate his professional opinion. We have counter opinions elsewhere (from people who can set the bar in the visual and physics department).
I am just extremely happy that joker454 and his team are finally dwelling on Cell. I'm sure it will grow on him. It seems that Cell has even more leg room than he expected. So we should expect wonderful things there. Hopefully there are also avenues for his team to talk to the first parties more.. like how Insomniac can deliver a next gen game using solely RSX for graphics work.
I agree but it's the only real firsthand MULTI-plat opinion so we need to give it some weight with regard to insight into aspects such as this thread which highlight an obvious difference in MP games (60fps v 30fps for same title).
sure it is too early to conclude anything and I'm sure results will be fluid (with each machine leapfrogging each other during their lifetimes for current best looking game)... just as I am sure that the current evidence points to the differences in the machines and the games they produce over the life of this gen (next 4-5 years) being a lot closer than most people anticipated 2 years ago.
that's about the only thing that I believe is conclusive, at this point. things may change 18 mos from now when new ways to work with Cell or Xenos becomes evident to more devs.
That is only if these two games are truly exclusive and even then that would not guarantee anything.
Why should we give the only source some weight ? ... especially when the developers admitted that they started the PS3 project too late in the software cycle in an earlier post.
It may also mean that compared to Microsoft, Sony sucked at developer support. Afterall it's MS's core business. The other good thing I picked out form joker454's post is that Sony has improved. However I expect this area to be a continuous challenge for Sony.
We also know at this point that PS3 is tricky to code for. So we may be seeing the effects today. Even the 60fps vs 30fps quote is qualified by "this year". Now as for whether anyone can tap the additional leg room in PS3... that's anybody's guess, but I would set my eyes on the first parties first.
There are some promising titles out there, but I'd rather wait and see patiently. It's not exactly like I don't have any PS3 games to play. I am already behind my gaming pipeline. Not to mention the friend-couple I stay with since last week (temporarily) are hogging the PS3.
Again, it is not conclusive but it is current multiplat evidence based upon seeing development on one system and then the next with no doubt improving results over time for both.
Of course exclusive devs are going to feel they have no limitations and take offense to MP devs who feel they do. they no doubt have worked tirelessly at their craft, making it work on the one machine as best they can (as they should). We give the other opinion weight because he has worked with both machines albeit, we temper our opinion with the caveats you and joker have mentioned.
it's all good patsu... :smile:
Of course exclusive devs are going to feel they have no limitations and take offense to MP devs who feel they do. they no doubt have worked tirelessly at their craft, making it work on the one machine as best they can (as they should). We give the other opinion weight because he has worked with both machines albeit, we temper our opinion with the caveats you and joker have mentioned.
it's all good patsu... :smile:
Last edited by a moderator:
Hold on, let me put my flame proof suit on........ok ready
Games that don't need to spend spu's on Edge type processing (like little big planet) will be better on PS3 since they can spend all the spu's on math crunching to an extent that the 360 simply can't match.
Games that hugely benefit from Edge type processing (like being able to consistently get ~40%+ culling from the spu's) can potentially run better on the PS3.
Games that don't benefit from Edge type processing (most notably backface culling) will run better on the 360 since it's gpu is faster.
Games that use alot of alpha blending can potentially run better on the 360.
Games that require alot of post processing effects can potentially run better on the 360.
Games that need 25gb+ of data will be better on PS3.
Games that run at 1080p can potentially run better on PS3.
...and so on. Alot depends on the game. I still feel that the 360's gpu puts it in a better position for the 'typical' games we'll see in the next three years. But that's just my feel, I'm sure I'll get called a lazy dev / junior coder / charlatan for it
For our title, the 360 build is still running quicker than the PS3 build. Our cpu requirements aren't severe, and depending on the camera view, we'll typically fall into the 15%-20% culling range, so the 360's abilities are better suited to our title. Having said that, ya cell is way faster than the xenon's ppu's. We do far far more processing on Cell than on 360's cpu's, but most of it is processing to help RSX. We lean much more on the 360's gpu than on the PS3's if you get what I mean. We're not done yet though, lots of time left on both builds.
As always Joker, thanks for sheding light on the truth. Both consoles have strengths that should produce great games. Simple as that.
To bad this thread is heading in the wrong direction as fast as some console fans can take it.
Joker thanks for the info. I'm also wondering why there's so many 'console x > console y' posts in this thread. As has been discussed many times before, and as Joker's post elaborates, each of these systems has its strength's and weaknesses and the overall result is dependent on what you're trying to achieve. This is pretty apparent when you look at current games and the subtle technical differences. As for future releases, they still look very comparable (e.g. FF13 and Fable 2) but often with very different artistic directions. I remember at least one developer on this forum stating that it will be the artistic design that will set games apart this generation, and that makes perfect sense given how similar the systems' overall capabilities are.
