Agreed. No vendor is going to make such huge concessions to anyone but themselves.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
*Game Development Issues*
- Thread starter valioso
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Agreed. No vendor is going to make such huge concessions to anyone but themselves.
Mintmaster
Veteran
Any engine that completely ignores the speedy AA hardware in 360 cannot be considered very optimized for the platform. UE3 is probably more impressive in it's engine framework and toolset than anything else, and MS was paying more for the great artwork in Gears than for anything code related to make the 360 look good.MS has surely poured plenty of money to get exclusive rights to Gears of War 1 and 2 and some of that money have probably helped get som extra tuning of UE3 for the 360.
If PS3 runs UE3 slower than 360, it has little to do with tuning.
More fuel for debate and ps3 problen less memory coments...Volition ,New Red Faction.
http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=6810
http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=6810
Funny how they claim they are pushing both consoles' limits, yet KZ2 and Gears2 easily outshine their mediocre game in every way.
More to the point; it's no news that the PS3 requires more effort to get it to parity, but that's not because of memory "constraints", it's because of the different architecture. There is no constraint if both machines have 512MB total.
More to the point; it's no news that the PS3 requires more effort to get it to parity, but that's not because of memory "constraints", it's because of the different architecture. There is no constraint if both machines have 512MB total.
Funny how they claim they are pushing both consoles' limits, yet KZ2 and Gears2 easily outshine their mediocre game in every way.
More to the point; it's no news that the PS3 requires more effort to get it to parity, but that's not because of memory "constraints", it's because of the different architecture. There is no constraint if both machines have 512MB total.
PS3 requires more resources to run XMB etc, compared to X360's xbox guide thingy, thus less memory avaliable.
The 360's embedded memory on the gpu provides additional savings. On the PS3 the frambuffer and z-buffer come out of the GDDR3 VRAM, whereas the 360 only needs to store the finished frame in main memory.
Actually it was. The team first started on the 360 and then switched to the PS3 as the lead.
More fuel for debate and ps3 problen less memory coments...Volition ,New Red Faction.
http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=6810
Isn't it amazing how the memory issues magically went away when they hired a seasoned PS3 developer?
Funny how they claim they are pushing both consoles' limits, yet KZ2 and Gears2 easily outshine their mediocre game in every way.
More to the point; it's no news that the PS3 requires more effort to get it to parity, but that's not because of memory "constraints", it's because of the different architecture. There is no constraint if both machines have 512MB total.
It's kind of hard to 'push' a platform when you're running so much generic and common code.
It's kind of hard to 'push' a platform when you're running so much generic and common code.
Then that statement is the usual BS, so the credibility of what they say went to 0.
Does Resistance 1, or Killzone 2 screenshots look blurry to you?
I don't think that KZ2 was the best example to use, as it (going by screenshots and videos so far) looks very blurry indeed.
I would probably say yes that the blur filter is to also help for performance on the PS3 version as well as jaggies. But I still believe if they had taken more effort and time into the PS3 version that wouldn't have been the case. There are so many more great looking games on PS3 that have not had to resort to such things and have acceptable performance. The PS3 is better than GTA4 on it.
Well, as it was well publicised that Sony "parachuted-in" a crack programming team to help optimise the engine for the PS3, I would be hesitant to make such a bold claim.
GarretASUS
Newcomer
I never heard about that. Is it a rumour or fact?
I never heard about that. Is it a rumour or fact?
August 2, 2007 - In a conference call set to begin at 5:30pm EST today, Rockstar Games will announce that it will delay the release of its highly-anticipated title Grand Theft Auto IV. Previously slated to hit stores on October 17th, the game will now make its way to gamers some point early next year.
In technical, company jargon, Rockstar has moved its release from the fourth quarter of fiscal 2007 to the second quarter of its fiscal 2008. In real-world terms, this means the title will ship sometime between February 1st and April 30th, 2008.
The reason for the delay is simple: Rockstar North needs more time to polish it. Given the game's exceptionally high expectations, Rockstar has chosen to push back the release a handful of months rather than rushing the title out to market.
Sam Houser, founder and executive producer of Rockstar Games, had this to say: "The new consoles are allowing us to create the Grand Theft Auto game we always dreamed about. Every aspect of the game and its design has been completely transformed. The game is huge and is pushing the hardware platforms to their absolute limits. The top engineers from Sony and Microsoft are working closely with the team in Edinburgh right now, helping us to fully leverage the power of both platforms. As always, our goal is to surpass even the wildest expectations of the game's fans, and to create the ultimate high definition video game experience."
So unless the MS "team" is better than the Sony one, both platforms ran the game as well as it could be run.
GarretASUS
Newcomer
I still stand by that if more was put into the PS3 version it would have resulted better. PS3 is more complicated than the 360 and the owness is more on the developers than the console maker.
grandmaster
Veteran
I still stand by that if more was put into the PS3 version it would have resulted better. PS3 is more complicated than the 360 and the owness is more on the developers than the console maker.
You're not being realistic. GTA IV took years to make. The developers would have had 360 devkits at least a year, probably closer to two, before they got equivalent PS3 equipment to work with. Perhaps you'd have been happier if they delayed the PS3 version for several months instead of releasing it day and date with the 360 game.
Certainly, the notion of comparing this project with first party games created from the ground up for PS3, and much smaller in scale and scope, doesn't quite compute.
GarretASUS
Newcomer
I would wait how ever long it takes to get the best experience from any game or any platform. They pushed the PC version to the last and now it looks to be the best version out of them all. They could have pushed the PS3 version back further like the PC. Sure, lots of people would be annoyed, but it would have made a better game and still would have sold strong.
I agree with this. I would rather have an implementation of QAA than a full screen blur filter, ala, GTA4 which is just horrible. QAA or FSAA is either not used on more third party PS3 games because of a lack of careness or because they do not properly implement their engine enough for performance on the PS3. I have heard that many developers are not given the budget or time to work on the PS3 version of games which is extremely unfortunate. It has been suggested that Killzone 2 is only using 3 or 4 SPE's (don't remember exactly which, but it isn't all 7), which goes to show how much optimization can be done to achieve quality and performance on PS3.
It's possible GTA4 PS3 went with the blur because a blur upscale post process pass is much faster than using any form of hardware msaa on PS3. You can do an upscale in ~0.5ms, compared to potentially many milliseconds for msaa. Remember that with msaa, the more stuff you draw the more expensive it becomes. A post process upscale on the other hand is a fixed performance cost regardless of what's going on on screen. GTA4 draws far more stuff that just about any game out there, far more than your typical shooter game, so msaa on GTA4 was probably very expensive on PS3.
Also, a post process upscale will require less memory than msaa will. All games have post process passes, and the upscale step can be fit into that framework with no extra memory required. Given the scope of GTA4, it's possible that they couldn't afford the extra memory hit for any form of msaa on PS3.
Combine the two, both a performance and memory hit, and you can see why they may have chosen to not use any msaa on GTA4 PS3 and instead go with a blur filter. The reason they went with msaa on the 360 version isn't because they are all dumb PS3 programmers at Rockstar that want Sony to fail. They have some serious talent there, they contribute to many of the graphics books that we all read. Instead it's likely because there is no memory hit for using msaa on 360, and the performance hit on 360 is relatively minimal as well.
Finally, you can't compare Killzone2 to GTA4. Those games have totally different hardware demands, it's impossible to compare the two. Open world games like GTA4 are perhaps the toughest most hardware demanding style of games out there to implement.
Does Resistance 1, or Killzone 2 screenshots look blurry to you? I'd say that this argument about Quincunx being very blurry is an exaggeration or myth, or perhaps is only a problem endemic to certain specific hardware configurations/videocards. Because with all the games on the PS3 that use the Quincunx method of AA, we frankly don't evidence of this "substantial blurring" that some people speak of.
You never want to use Quincunx in multiplatform games because it looks like poop when compared to the regular 2xmsaa that will be used on the other platform. You can perhaps get away with it if you are making a PS3 only game, since people might not notice the texture blur because there is no other version of the game to compare it to. But rest assured, it does blur the final image. It's not a recommended alternative for upscale blur for the reasons I mentioned earlier, in that if the devs have chosen to upscale blur it's probably because they are out of gpu.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 90
- Views
- 16K
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 9K
