Are Sony devs aiming higher?

[blakjedi]

Than the average 360 dev? I cant think of technical reason why anything slated for PS3 couldnt be done on 360... I just get the feeling (Based on target renders and CGI work) that devs expect to be able to "do more" on PS3 than with x360...

 

[Powderkeg]

Based on target renders and CGI work

Funny, when I see actual in-game screenshots I'm left with the opposite feeling. For having a year+ longer to develope their launch games than the 360 devs had, it sure seems like there isn't much, if any improvement over 360 launch games.

 

[Titanio]

Comparing PS3 at E3 06 to 360 at E3 05, that extra time with dev kits certainly was showing.

As for the first question, I'm not entirely sure I understand. Do you mean Sony first/second parties, or all PS3 developers or..?

 

[Powderkeg]

Comparing PS3 at E3 06 to 360 at E3 05, that extra time with dev kits certainly was showing.

I must have missed something major then, because I saw MS with about twice as many playable games at E3 05 than Sony had at E3 06, and MS didn't have to resort to using "HD" versions of their Xbox games to fluff up their playable games list.

However, I will admit that MS didn't show off any historical giant crabs or neat features like real-time weapon change, so maybe the PS3 was ahead of where MS was.

 

[Titanio]

I must have missed something major then, because I saw MS with about twice as many playable games at E3 05 than Sony had at E3 06

MS had ~30 playable games on 360 at E3 05?

Oh, and that's a very disingenuous remark regarding GT HD. It was resolutely a low-light compared to what else was on show on PS3.

 

[ZiFF]

Funny, when I see actual in-game screenshots I'm left with the opposite feeling. For having a year+ longer to develope their launch games than the 360 devs had, it sure seems like there isn't much, if any improvement over 360 launch games.

Umm.. most PS3 development started after E3 2005, so i doubt they had an extra year.

I must have missed something major then, because I saw MS with about twice as many playable games at E3 05 than Sony had at E3 06

Right..

They had PDZ and what?

 

[Powderkeg]

MS had ~30 playable games on 360 at E3 05?

Sony had more than 15 that were playable? Can you list them? Because I can only think of 5-6 myself.

Oh, and that's a very disingenuous remark regarding GT HD. It was resolutely a low-light compared to what else was on show on PS3.

I didn't claim it was a highlight, I only said they included it to fluff up their presentation due to lack of other things to show. Why else show a high resolution version of a 2 year old PS2 game instead of say, GT5?

 

[Powderkeg]

Right..

They had PDZ and what?

Off the top of my head...

COD2, Condemned, Top Spin 2, Need for Speed, Full Auto, Kameo, and even a little game called Gears of War.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I bothered to use Google.

 

[Mmmkay]

Sony had more than 15 that were playable? Can you list them? Because I can only think of 5-6 myself.

Try harder or don't bother contributing:

Heavenly Sword
Resistance
Sonic
Full Auto 2
Fatal Inertia
Formula One '06
Genji 2
Gran Turismo HD
Madden NFL 07
Mobile Suit Gundam
MotorStorm
Untold Legends
Virtua Tennis 3
Warhawk
The Eye of Judgment

Those were the games playable on the show floor, there may have been additional titles shown behind closed doors (like Gears was in 2005).

 

[3roxor]

Kinda useless this discussion.. I'm sure Sony could show about 50 games or so but they obviously decided not too.Probably because they want to present the games in a (near) finished state. This is a different strategy than that of MS>\.

Than the average 360 dev? I cant think of technical reason why anything slated for PS3 couldnt be done on 360... I just get the feeling (Based on target renders and CGI work) that devs expect to be able to "do more" on PS3 than with x360...

Curious..do you think that the CPU, GPU, bandwidth, memory and various system performances are all in favour of the 360?

 

[Titanio]

Sony had more than 15 that were playable? Can you list them? Because I can only think of 5-6 myself.

There's at least 15 I can list, excluding whatever was playable behind closed doors. Hence you need at least 30 to make your claim remotely true. The showfloor playables were:

edit - seem Mmmkay's list.

Gears wasn't playable on 360 at E3 05, btw. Because the kits were in such a state, Epic refused to show it on a 360 kit.

Asides from pure numbers, most of the playable ps3 games were smooth and polished. I mean, Resistance already had 32 player networked multiplayer up and running at E3, for example. As a first showing of a system's software, a lot of commentators expressed surprise at how advanced the software seemed to be in their dev cycle.

I didn't claim it was a highlight, I only said they included it to fluff up their presentation due to lack of other things to show. Why else show a high resolution version of a 2 year old PS2 game instead of say, GT5?

Because Kutaragi specifically requested Polyphony to show something playable (a couple of weeks before the show) because he thinks GT is the be-all-end-all. It could have been absent and would have gone pretty much unmissed, the other titles did not need it to fluff anything up.

 

[blakjedi]

Curious..do you think that the CPU, GPU, bandwidth, memory and various system performances are all in favour of the 360?

That has nothing to do with the question really. Every system architecture has strengths and weaknesses... my contention is that from a standpoint of visible differences... I have seen nothing on PS3 planned or otherwise that is not possible on x360... but the vision of PS3 developers seems more expansive and polished in terms of what they expect to be able to produce than what I can read or see about future x360 games in development...

Get it?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The old subjectivity meter is going into critical overdrive! eg. For some people, <60 fps doesn't get a look in, so if console A has 100 playable games with 5 at 60 fps, and console B has 30 games with 20 at 60 fps, those people would say console B had a more impresive showing. For others, animation counts more than static eyecandy. The OP needs to clarify what exactly they're measuring by to decide PS3 is aiming higher than XB360, if there's to be any actual discussion on the point. Not that this thread can really go anywhere. I don't expect it to last long...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That has nothing to do with the question really. Every system architecture has strengths and weaknesses... my contention is that from a standpoint of visible differences... I have seen nothing on PS3 planned or otherwise that is not possible on x360...

How do you know it's not impossible on XB360 though? I'm not quite sure what you're looking at. Texture resolution? Model resolution? Animations? Gameplay physics? In the case of visible differences you have technical limits and art style all coming to play. Of those, you have things that may or may not be possible. eg. Texture quality and model resolution you'd assume both machines are capable of the same, but then you have other effects. Do you rate Warhawk's RT clouds as something better in PS3's games? If so, do you know for a fact that XB360 could render Warhawk along with RT clouds?

I'm guessing that the thing that's most affecting you're judgement on comparable impressions is art style and presentation though. You have to name some games you're comparing to show the sort of differences you're seeing. Otherwise responses are going to be very subjective.

 

[3roxor]

That has nothing to do with the question really. Every system architecture has strengths and weaknesses... my contention is that from a standpoint of visible differences... I have seen nothing on PS3 planned or otherwise that is not possible on x360... but the vision of PS3 developers seems more expansive and polished in terms of what they expect to be able to produce than what I can read or see about future x360 games in development...

Get it?

I get it, but shouldn't we wait before we see the launchgames in full detail? We saw 1 short stage of motorstorm, missionless Warhaws, a few snippets of Resistance, and Heavenly Sword(playable in some confined space) plus no real gameplay footage of graphically promising games like Lair/The Getaway.

I think it's all speculation right now.

 

[blakjedi]

Based on various comments, nAo seems to give the impression that per his style of development, there are things he prefers about the PS3 architecture in terms of post-processing and effects... but he never said it wouldnt be possible to do on 360...

Heavenly Sword's style and polish seems unmatched in the genre which also includes NNN for 360... maybe NT are better developers or maybe they are just aiming higher in terms of their belief that they could get better results from the PS3 than 360...

Even though is not really my style of game anymore...the geometry in MGS4 is outrageous... why havent we seen that in a360 game.. because frankly the 360 can output just as much if not more than PS3... is it just that Konami has a higher expectation of what the PS3 can do and actually trying to meeting the challenge of the hardware?

I've seen stuff on 360 that blows me away (GRAW, Condemned) but I know that that cannot be the limit of whats possible on the machine... but outside of GoW theres very little to support my contention that it can do better whereas PS3 seems to have several examples on hand...

 

[ZiFF]

Regardless of the graphics and physics PS3-exclusives produce in the coming years, people will always argue that it would also be possible on the other machine.

 

[Nesh]

Even though is not really my style of game anymore...the geometry in MGS4 is outrageous... why havent we seen that in a360 game.. because frankly the 360 can output just as much if not more than PS3... is it just that Konami has a higher expectation of what the PS3 can do and actually trying to meeting the challenge of the hardware?

I dont quite understand what you are tryting to say there.

 

[blakjedi]

I dont quite understand what you are tryting to say there.

Doesnt 360 have >= triangle setup limit to PS3? SO why do we see what appears to be more geometry in PS3 games footage?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Heavenly Sword's style and polish seems unmatched in the genre which also includes NNN for 360... maybe NT are better developers or maybe they are just aiming higher in terms of their belief that they could get better results from the PS3 than 360...

In the case of HS vs N3 (HS in the Blue corner, N3 in the red corner) you're looking at a 2nd party (is that 1.5th party given the closeness of Ninja Theory and SCEE at Cambridge?) where I'm guessing Sony have said 'hang the cost; showcase our machine as we want a killer title' and 3rd party where the publisher says 'we want to make lots of money; try not to spend too much.' I think (might be wrong) most of what's been shown on PS3, especially the eye-catching stuff, comes from companyies close to Sony who are in some ways doing Sony a favour by showcasing their machine. They're putting in more effort to add polish. You also have companies with a sense of pride like Kojima who are likely to put as much polish into any platform, but at the moment we're only seeing their PS3 efforts.

Or...PS3 has more attainable resources, by which I mean that which the devs can get out of it. Having RSX and nVidia's tools may be helping a lot. Perhaps that Cell is proving very nice to get performance out of, if you're good at working with it, and of course the showcase titles are all going to be from clever devs. Add to that the exclusive nature of titles which means more optimised engines using the hardware, whereas XB360 is sharing some titles with PC's meaning legacy engine. GOW as a showcase title is still built around a multiplatform middleware system, unlike HS or some of these other titles that are PS3 only engines. First party titles have shown their share of polish I think.

Well, there's some ideas to ponder