Am. Football games 2008 PS3/X360

What about those games in particular do you think pushes them beyond the XB360?

Dead Rising, Kameo and others have proven that you don't really need a CELL CPU to have a thousand characters on screen with AI and very good detail. Is it the huge scale of the environments? Halo 3’s campaign should be fairly colossal if we’re to believe the Bungie weekly updates.

I'm looking forward to playing all of these games but I'm failing to see CELL power being absolutely essential for any, apart from perhaps Lair.

 

Without reading the context in this thread, I think Vic meant first-party developers have no overhead due to multiplatform abstraction hence are more likely to represent respective hardwares better than multiplatform devs.

As for perceived difference, there are things that won't appear in a multiplatform game as no approximation is available such as realtime non-precomputed ambient occlusion that simply need Cell to reach 30fps, but how it's presented to consumer's perception depends on the sense of developers.

 

Isn't Splinter Cell: Conviction doing some kind of ambient occlusion? That title could possibly end up going multi-platform.

Missed your edit. Would CELL really be capable of that?

 

Yeah thats exactly what I was referring to. Though I take Mint's point about it being extremely difficult to judge console power from them, I think E3 will show that 1st-party games are graphiacally slightly ahead of their 3rd-party equivalents.

 

I think so but at what cost, there still needs to be some free CELL cycles to handle other non graphics stuff.

 

You make some good points, and I can agree with a lot of them. A perceptible difference would need an enormous increase in power, and much of what will be considered 'better' is produced by developer effort rather than hardware ability.

However, if you're going to set about trying to determine the most powerful machine as swanlee was trying, the only time you'll see that is when the machine's are being maxxed out, and not in cross-platform titles. That normally comes from first party devs who have both the best support from the parent company and less pressure to get the game out regardless. The 1st (and second) party titles are where you'll find most flagship titles where cost is offset to allow the developers to stretch their legs. Thus the hardware will be most optimally targeted in exclusives. Software won't be the limiting factor as much - the hardware will be doing as much as it possibly can. From there you can compare like with like as best as possible. It's not a proper evaluation, but with enough different games it'll provide something to compare where in application of AA, AF, frame-rates, improved visuals through shaders, etc. Unless one console company has a glut of developer talent that the other lacks, and Console X has all the better artwork and production values which give it the impression of better performance over Console Y!

 

Kinda like, if your looking at racing games last gen, most people would think that PS2 was more powerful than Xbox, because of Gran Turismo 4

 

That is if you don't take RSC2 into account.

 

I thought of that. But it wouldn't be true to a proper examination. Comparing GT4 to Forza or PGR2, GT4 had inferior textures and poly counts in the scenery. Polyphony just applied PS2's resources to better artistic effect on the main objects. To Joe Public, sit GT4 next to Forza and PGR2 and ask which console is better, and they may say PS2, looking at the realistic cars. But to us lot who should know what to look for, the artistry should take second place. We can say GT4 is the better looking game perhaps, but can point out the hardware driving the XB racers is more powerful, given an appreciation that all titles are pushing the hardware and none is stopping well short of the hardware's abilities.

It's not impossible to disassociate aesthetics in an analysis of titles. It'll be hard to pin down double the poly count, or 25% better framerates. But it should be possible to tell a higher performance bar, just as it is looking as XB titles versus PS2, unless the machines' performances are close enough as for it not to matter.

 

Agreed. And right now, we are not seeing anything resembling a higher performance bar on the PS3 over the X360. We see a lot of promising games on both sides, but nothing yet that tells us of a higher performance bar on the PS3.

Perhaps, after seing some new stuff that Sony has been cocking up for E3, will change that...

 

It's too early to tell, but I'm still thinking that when it comes to first party titles, the PS3 will take the cake. The question is how long it will take for 3rd party titles to show a difference. For now the 360 has the advantage, but the question is will that ever change? Much of it will probably depend on the PC. Right now, the PC and 360 versions of games are close together, as it has been at the beginning of the previous cycle, and you see a big surge in PC/360 games. At some point in the future though, the PS3's architecture will have become more obvious and familiar, and things may change. Important in this respect may be how the UE3 turns out on the PS3. The most recent reports appear to be positive, and I think we'll find out more soon.

But you never know how these things turn out. There are still very interesting times ahead! 1st party and '2nd' party developers will stay important though, as many of the key technologies are being shared, on the PS3 for instance through Edge. The question is how fast these things will end up in 3rd party games.

One of the most important things in the next generation is a general paradigm shift in programming and development. PC style development so far has concentrated on GPUs not only because the GPU offered a lot of performance, but also because on the PC the GPU and CPU haven't been as easily tied together, and the GPU vs CPU power discrepency has been very wide for a good while in that respect. In this era where PC, PS3 and 360 are relatively close together, and each have a smallish install base, this has informed game development especially for multi-platform games. But with multi-core PCs, faster bandwidths, as well as both the 360 and PS3 being multi-core, we'll see some changes. And then the question is whether or not the PS3 has an advantage under those new circumstances.

I think the 360's graphics card is interesting and in some respects seems to be a closer decendent of the PS2's graphics card than the RSX seems to be. But the Cell does give a strong advantage. I'm willing to bet that the Havok Engine, in its optimised for Cell form, does in fact perform rather well on the Cell, who knows maybe even the 5x better that Mintmaster considers the threshold for a significant difference.

It's so hard to guess what will matter most in the end. Right now Stranglehold's rather unorthodox use of the extra space, i.e. including the full HD remastering of Hardboiled on the disc, is quite interesting.

In my view, there is a clear difference in terms of how the 360 and PS3 have been setup - the latter is much more clearly intended to last 10 years than the former (not even considering reliability issues ), and much more likely to be useful without significant hardware changes or upgrades. My experience with consoles and competition have led me to believe that this alone can matter in the end, but only if the differences become important enough.

Right now though it'll be interesting to see whether Sony will try to get EA to reach 60fps or not.

 

Sure. Right now we may even say XB360 is the better looking machine. But my whole point was 'right now' = 'too early' and no conclusions should be being drawn! At least not hardware conclusions. Gaming conclusions, it's probably fair to say that if you're interested in cross-platform games, you'd get a better experience from XB360 at the moment.

 

What is it about Uncharted, Lair and HS that makes them undoable on the 360?

 

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.

 

Factor 5 tends to really push whatever hardware they're currently working on. They did the same thing for the Gamecube as they're currently doing for the PS3. I'm sure many people remember them claiming the GC was more powerful than the Xbox back in the day.
I'm sure these developers are doing things with their PS3 games they wouldn't attempt on 360. These platforms have different strengths, so i expect them to play on those strengths. That doesn't mean they couldn't turn around and claim the same thing if the game was being developed for the 360 exclusively.

 

Sorry but that was another 1up or IGN fuck up if i remember correctly

Source http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/736/736325p1.html

 

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1027115&postcount=112

Mintmaster already spoke about the difference in CPU power earlier in this thread.

 

I think that if Microsoft's first and second party developers concentrated on single player affairs, a more fair comparison could be done. I'm just talking about in terms of how the games are made. Credence and effort given to multiplayer takes away resources from single player. Like this for example. Bungie talks about the breakdown of people allocation for Halo 3

http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/800/800901p4.html

A more focused single player effort than what they have know would show the true capabilities of a console.

 

I am surprised CPU power is still under discussion.
Any task that scales linearly and CPU-heavy will be visibly better on better CPU.
Above linear, the difference will likely be minor. But many tasks though nonlinear in nature, do scale linearly with number of localized objects so you may not see better AI but you may see more bots or NPC with the same level of AI.
That said, unlike physics or animation, AI is particularly bad example for discussing CPU as computationally weaker AI may look better, simply because it has more if-then-elses burned in.

Of course for many problems, FLOP means nothing compared to memory access. Having no idea how good Xenon is in that respect (latency, bandwidth, programmable cache, etc.), I am not comparing consoles. But saying CPU difference is not important, seems short sighted at best.

 

Cool ! The thread turned for the better.

I have similar view as Mintmaster in the sense that the developers/software will make the real difference on top of the hardware facility. I was a little put off when people tried to break down/shoehorn a console into a list of can's and cannot's.

However I differ form Mintmaster's opinion in the following ways:

* The advantage of Cell is not (only) in FLOPs. Today... it is unclear to me how suitable/powerful Cell is for gaming. We have real life examples of Cell outrunning other hi-end CPUs by an order of magnitude because of overall architecture advantages (e.g., explicit control, async DMA, bandwidth, ...). The question is when and whether these situations exist in console gaming. I can't comment on the RSX side because nAo and DeanA have been pretty good at protecting their *sses.

* It seems to me that... if it's worthwhile, selected sacrifice can be offered to make room for the needed "power". In other words, the developers may reduce the game scope, resolution, framerate, ... so that they can achieve a discernible breakthrough in the desired area. Perhaps one day, we will be able to tell.

* "More powerful" is multi-dimensional. It's also not well-defined. I am not keen to compare System X and Y. I'm keen to see more exploitation of Cell and more improvements/breakthrough on the same platform. Today, I am impressed (so far) by first generation PS3 games like Heavenly Sword, Lair, LittleBigPlanet and Drake's Fortune. I think they are all unique and wonderful in their own rights. Next round, I look forward to another leap and cross-pollination. This is sufficient for me.