Fight Night 3 Trailer

[scooby_dooby]

Whatever man, the E3 video was not in game, anyone who's played FN can tell you that, this is in-game fighting so that's the difference.

And this has more to do with EA's demo vs realtime gfx than PS3 or X360, remember madden at E3? remember the final madden?

Things always change from tech demo to the realgame, and you better believe this is the X360 AND PS3 version.

 

[avaya]

Maybe the engine is built for PS3 in mind, when ported to the X360 the animations become jerky. Doesn't say anything about the power of the two consoles, but it's a possibility.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Theres no doubt that these two games will look very similar. But i also wouldnt be surprized if one console had improvement in a area it excells in over the other console, this wouldnt be the only time. If i remember correctly, burnout 3 had better particle effects on the ps2 while the xbox version had better textures. Not huge enough differences to warrant saying one version is really better than another, but maybe a big enough difference to notice that there is a difference.

 

[rosman]

I don't actually remember saying that it looked any better or worse. I simply made a comment about the jerky animations, and they are jerky, and I've seen plenty of jerky animations in the Xbox 360 so far. And no, the Fight Night PS3 trailer did not have jerky animations like this trailer did.

You don't see it, I don't care. I stick by my comment.

When you a controller in your hand, the animation is always more jerky than any trailer , thats a fact. You have to balance the number of animation with gamplay/controls. Since we havent seen gameplay ps3 games, so far hard to judge.

I just want to know , what kind of power do you need for making more advanced animations ? ( memory capacity, bandwith, processor speed ? )

 

[scooby_dooby]

Maybe the engine is built for PS3 in mind, when ported to the X360 the animations become jerky. Doesn't say anything about the power of the two consoles, but it's a possibility.

No, if anything the engine was built for 360 in mind since EA has always known that FN3 would come out for 360 first.

Just face it, the animations are a little jerkier cause that was 2 people controlling the players and fighting, not an isolated tech demo with only a few punch animations.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If you haven't seen both videos side by side then do so because the opinions expressed in this thread have simply fallen to the all too useless and predictable:

XBOX360 fan: They look the same
PS3 fan: PS3 version looks a million times better

wierd cause GVTV, Attack of the Show, and X-Play have all said the trailer looks pretty much the same to them. I guess they must be xbox fans?

 

[mckmas8808]

If anyone, expect differences between X360 and PS3 version in EA games, they're setting themselves up for a dissapointement, I say.

Sorry Vysez and everybody else here that think that every Xbox and PS2 game looks exactly a like. You guys are living in a dream world. You gotta wake up people. Check it out.

Fight Night 2004

Surprisingly, the graphical differences between the PlayStation 2 and Xbox versions are minimal. Though the Xbox effort is a lot sharper with less aliasing and boasts a widescreen mode that works better than the PS2 edition's (for some unexplainable reason, the widescreen option results in big framerate drops and slowdown for the PlayStation 2). The rest of game's visual aspects are virtually identical in every way for both platforms.

IGN

Madden 2005

Graphically, the three versions are pretty predictable in that the GameCube version looks a tad better than the PS2 version, and the Xbox version looks a bit better than the GameCube version.

Gamespot

NBA Live 2005

However, there's a noticeable drop-off for the PlayStation 2 and GameCube editions when you play a regular five-on-five game, with a big decrease in player-model detail and much flatter lighting. The Xbox version doesn't see nearly as steep of a drop-off in the regular gameplay modes, and as a result, it's by far the best looking of the three console versions of the game.

Gamespot

MVP 2005

Graphically, the three versions are quite similar to one another when viewed on standard televisions. The colors in the PlayStation 2 version look muddier than those in the other two, particularly with regard to the way uniforms and outfield walls are shaded, but they're not muddier to such an extent that you'll be distracted while playing the game.

Gamespot

Tiger Woods 2005

Most of the differences are ultimately pretty nominal, but when compared side-by-side-by-side, the Xbox version definitely has the greatest graphical fidelity.

Gamespot

See my point?

 

[pegisys]

Sorry Vysez and everybody else here that think that every Xbox and PS2 game looks exactly a like. You guys are living in a dream world. You gotta wake up people. Check it out....

that has more to do with hardware, all the art and effects are pretty much the same, all ps2 games are aliased with lots of texture shimmering. that alone can make a big difference, and will not be a problem with any of the new systems

 

[scooby_dooby]

Except we're not talking about the PS2 and XBOX which had completely different architectures and drastically different specs.

We're talking about 2 system with the same amount of ram, roughly equivalent GPU's and 3.2Ghz powerPC based CPU's.

The lowest common denominator is 1PPE + GPU, it really remains to be seen how much effort EA will put into multi-threading their cross-platform ports. But I highly doubt we'll see anywhere near as big of a difference as we had last gen, the specs are just too similar.

 

[Iron Tiger]

I don't care if the lighting is more technically correct (which it doesn't appear to be, in my eyes), the E3 footage just looks better. There's also more detail in the faces. You can clearly see seams where the eyelids meet the eyeballs in the X360 trailer, but it looks more soft and naturally on the E3 footage. The new screens show them in the same hangar as in the E3 footage, but it's lit differently. I prefer the E3 stuff.

 

[scooby_dooby]

And I preferred the E3 render of madden, and the E3 showing of Ghost Recon, in both cases the final game looks completely different.

That's why they call them tech-demos.

 

[avaya]

No, if anything the engine was built for 360 in mind since EA has always known that FN3 would come out for 360 first.

Just face it, the animations are a little jerkier cause that was 2 people controlling the players and fighting, not an isolated tech demo with only a few punch animations.

Why would they not tailor their next-gen engine for the successor of this gens market leader? From that standpoint it would be logical for them to focus the engine more around PS3, irrespective of other consoles.

Anyway I was just throwing the idea in there. Not that I believe/know it to be the case! It's a possibility that's all.

 

[scooby_dooby]

It's not logical at all, why develop a game due out in May, for a system that doesn't launch worldwide until Nov? For all the japanese boxing fans?

It's completely ass backwards, the X360 version comes out first, so you're saying they should develop for PS3, then 6 months before the PS3 version comes out, port that same game (presumably still in development) to the X360? What!?

The X360 version comes out first, so that will be the base platform, and PS3 will get a port of that, not vice versa. And untill 2008 the X360 will most likely be the market leader, not PS3 so if we want to use your logic, they will develop for the market leader which is xbox.

 

[3roxor]

It's not logical at all, why develop a game due out in May, for a system that doesn't launch worldwide until Nov? For all the japanese boxing fans?

It's completely ass backwards, the X360 version comes out first, so you're saying they should develop for PS3, then 6 months before the PS3 version comes out, port that same game (presumably still in development) to the X360? What!?

The X360 version comes out first, so that will be the base platform, and PS3 will get a port of that, not vice versa. And untill 2008 the X360 will most likely be the market leader, not PS3 so if we want to use your logic, they will develop for the market leader which is xbox.

There are atleast 4 asumptions in your post. Seems like you already made up your mind about alot of stuff.

 

[avaya]

The X360 version comes out first, so that will be the base platform, and PS3 will get a port of that, not vice versa. And untill 2008 the X360 will most likely be the market leader, not PS3 so if we want to use your logic, they will develop for the market leader which is xbox.

Past history obviously does not guarantee future performance but it is a good guide nevertheless.

Therefore it is logical for them to make the assumption that the PS3 will be market leader next generation, bar some sort of incredible turnaround.

Therefore why not develop your next gen engine around the probable market leader, making that console the base platform?

Your view differs, fundamentally, from that point of view, so fair enough

 

[scooby_dooby]

There are atleast 4 asumptions in your post. Seems like you already made up your mind about alot of stuff.

Feel free to point any out that you dn't think are reasonable.

- FN 3 will launch first on X360
- PS3 will not launch worldwide until at least holiday 06
- X360 will be the market leader through 2007

Those are all very realistic, and probably correct assumptions.

Avaya, the 'probable' market leader is the X360 for the next 2 years so I'm not really following your logic. They should design a game in 2005, not for the market leader in 2006 or 2007, but for the 'possible' market leader in 2008 or 2009?

Doesn't it make more sense to support the makert leader at this point in time? This game goes on sale in 2006 after all, who's their market? It's game buyers in 2006 and 2007, not game buyers in 2009! They will be focused mainly on teh X360 as that where most of the money will be in 2006 and 2007.

 

[mckmas8808]

Except we're not talking about the PS2 and XBOX which had completely different architectures and drastically different specs.

We're talking about 2 system with the same amount of ram, roughly equivalent GPU's and 3.2Ghz powerPC based CPU's.

The lowest common denominator is 1PPE + GPU, it really remains to be seen how much effort EA will put into multi-threading their cross-platform ports. But I highly doubt we'll see anywhere near as big of a difference as we had last gen, the specs are just too similar.

That's the point scooby, so why are people here acting as if ALL EA games look exactly the same and can't look different? My point of my post is that EA does make games that look different.

And if it remains to be seen on how much effort EA will put into multi-threading their cross platform games, then I guess people like me and a few others could be correct in thinking that a difference between a Xbox 360 FN3 and a PS3 FN3 could possibly look different for better or worst right?

 

[scooby_dooby]

But you were talking a console(XBOX) that hade liek 33% more RAM! OF course they spiced it up. Not to mention the consoles themselves were so different, there was no choice but to develop a custom version for both.

PS3 and X360 are much closer, and EA would have to write code specifically for the SPE's which I would imagine is much more complex, and much more time consuming than making use of some extra ram. They can now feasibly write one game, using the lowest common denominator (1 PPE + GPU) that will work for both systems.

Rewriting your code to make use of the SPE's must be much more difficult(and probably provides less returns) than tweaking an engine to make use of the XBOX's general purpose celeron cpu, and large 64mb of ram.

Let me ask yo a question, if XBOX and PS2 had extremely similar specs, same amount of ram, both used dedicated GPU's that were roughly equal, do you really think that the EA games last gen would've looked any different on each platform? Or do you think EA would've took teh easy way out and just made one version?

 

[scooby_dooby]

And if it remains to be seen on how much effort EA will put into multi-threading their cross platform games, then I guess people like me and a few others could be correct in thinking that a difference between a Xbox 360 FN3 and a PS3 FN3 could possibly look different for better or worst right?

You would be correct in thinking it's "possible" but you would not be correct in thinking it's "probable".

Just as someone could say it's "possible" they make use of the SM3.0+ features in Xenos to make it look better... but they probably won't.

 

[pegisys]

That's the point scooby, so why are people here acting as if ALL EA games look exactly the same and can't look different? My point of my post is that EA does make games that look different.

And if it remains to be seen on how much effort EA will put into multi-threading their cross platform games, then I guess people like me and a few others could be correct in thinking that a difference between a Xbox 360 FN3 and a PS3 FN3 could possibly look different for better or worst right?

No, the reason that people say they are going to look the same is because EA never took advantage of a more powerfull system before, the games that do look better on different system is because of architectural ones not because EA made it look better

Now if the render quality is better on the PS3 then they will be better but the art, the effect and animation will more then likely be the same