MGS4 possibility on 360 tidbit?
- Thread starter 22psi
- Start date
woundingchaney
Regular
Which would be "coding" for the system, it is code.
So far this gen we have numerous statements going both ways about the capabilities and what can and cannot be done on either system. While both seem to have their strengths there is little to suggest that replication cannot exist either way, to one extent or another. While this may play out more towards the end of the gen, I seriously doubt we have seen anything that is even remotely impossible on a cross-platform basis (IMO).
Everything can be ported, thats easy, it probably wont run as good as the originial but, it can be ported. Some crazy people played HL2 on an Xbox1. Other people played Ninja Gaiden on a Ps3!! (which is also a port)
Just because there hasn't been any game that has been in the need of using mud deformation, doesn't mean its impossible. If my memory is correct, Rallisport Challenge on Xbox 1 had mud trails. Anyways, haven't you watched all the multiplatform rally games trailers lately?
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=66104 <- terrible quality video, but mud deformation (i think its even more shiny than motorstorms)
http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=4609 <- Dirt, with mud deformation
Presented as a whole package each iteration is a very good game. However, there are parts of gameplay that aren't necessarily MGS strong points. Gameplay between boss battles aren't that enthralling and can be very generic at times. Game mechanic aspects like the camera, which has been addressed by Subsistence, had been a sore spot for a long time and presented the need for all guard enemies to be legally blind. Furthermore, the times when the story line is pushed along by forcing Snake to go to a knee and partake in radio communcation that can be numbing when they last for 2 minutes or more.
However, those shortcomings and others are greatly overshadowed when you experience Metal Gear as a whole for most MGS fans. Its not the Cell/RSX, Xenon/Xenos or BlueRay that will primarily responsible for the experience given by MGS4 it will be kojima who, regardless of the technology put before him, fashions Metal Gear Solid into game we look forward to every iteration.
There is literally nothing in the trailers that has gotten everyone excited that is generally viewed as impossible on the 360.
Last edited by a moderator:
archangelmorph
Veteran
I'm sorry but i'm with Scooby & Ostepop on this one..
Any game can be ported from one platform to the next..
If you look at what defines a game in the purest sense, you'll realise that a PS3 title could in effect be ported to Xbox360, Wii, DS (or even the C64 in some form or another..) heck a game like eye of judgement could very well be "ported" to a completely non-digital form (table-top-card game)..
At the end of the day you're all arguing over semantics.. If you define a game as art + specific code then sure your game can't be ported to everything!! (Although it can still be ported to a range of platforms, there are degrees of what could still be considered a part..) However if you define it by story + themes + art + design then I guess the skies the limit with respect to which platform you could could ship on..
Either way this disscussion should probably try to move on or else it runs the risk of recycling the same old arguements, back and forth... back and forth.. again and again... ad infinum..
Any game can be ported from one platform to the next..
If you look at what defines a game in the purest sense, you'll realise that a PS3 title could in effect be ported to Xbox360, Wii, DS (or even the C64 in some form or another..) heck a game like eye of judgement could very well be "ported" to a completely non-digital form (table-top-card game)..
At the end of the day you're all arguing over semantics.. If you define a game as art + specific code then sure your game can't be ported to everything!! (Although it can still be ported to a range of platforms, there are degrees of what could still be considered a part..) However if you define it by story + themes + art + design then I guess the skies the limit with respect to which platform you could could ship on..
Either way this disscussion should probably try to move on or else it runs the risk of recycling the same old arguements, back and forth... back and forth.. again and again... ad infinum..
Redesigning your data to run well on the SPEs doesn't inherently means that redesigned data will run like crap on a general purpose multicore cpu. General purpose cores are more flexible which generally allows SPE to GP porting easier than GP to SPE porting. The Cell has one GP core and the Xenon has three, which means SPEs must take advantage of code that can even generally be handled well with a general purpose core but most be moved to the SPEs due to lack of resources.
Its been stated that if you planning a multi platform game that initially designing your code with the PS3 and its SPEs in mind alleviates a lot of the headaches that normally exists when porting from the 360 to the PS3.[/
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
Anything CAN be ported. It's simply a question of how much it needs to be downgraded.
If the mud effects couldn't be done, they could be cut, or replaced with a simpler solution. It doesn't mean you couldn't port the game.
Duck Dodgers
Newcomer
After seeing LittleBigPlanet on the PS3 the temptation to say
"that couldn't possibly be done on the 360!" is strong.
Then of course you play RagDollKungFu on a PC and that assertion flies out the window.
"that couldn't possibly be done on the 360!" is strong.
Then of course you play RagDollKungFu on a PC and that assertion flies out the window.
NovemberMike
Regular
RE4 was a noticably inferior game on the PS2. Nobody really complained. Same could easily happen with MGS4 (ie. less enemies on the map or whatever).
These are some solutions but what happens if the developer wants to use that storage seemlessly? Meaning things like not forcing a linear path, or having multible sections thata interact with each other. If you want to add more content plus this kind of story/gameply development BR does not add such limitations.
Knowing you have to port the game to something that has less available storage you will have to rethink the game again.
Then there are uncertainties on what Cell can do best and what Xenon can do best. There are many things both can do great. But according to many developer claims there are some significant differences and experimentation. I am not a techie but AFAIK assigning specific tasks to SPUs most likely they will be very fast with them and do things the Xenon will find hard to do them efficiently and as fast to be considered practical. At the same time there are general tasks that Xenon can take easilly while the developer would have to figure how on earth these should be put and processed in Cell with a PPU that doesnt work all that great alone and very small independent processing units that can not take general purpose tasks.
What makes Hideo Kojima's work and MGS so different than other MP games is that when he makes a game for a console such as MGS although a 3rd party developer, he wants to put all the effort a 1st party developer puts for an exclusive game that is perfectly optimized to take fully advandage everything that is available on that hardware (whether that is HDD, optical storage, controller, Memory, edram, you name it )
What makes MP games in general so cost effiective? Fixed cost. It is very similar to economies of scope.
It involves reusage of assets to develop one extra game/title on another platform without much extra cost involved. Variable cost on the other hand involves optimization and experimentation with the hardware. Increase Variable cost too much and economies of scope are reduced.
This was no problem last gen because if the developer wanted to port an awesome game from a powerful hardware to the PS2 all he had to do was cut out some things and reuse whatever the console could do with some optimization. The game would be worse but forgiven for anything cut or altered from the version as long as it was at an acceptable level since limitations of the console were known(thats why such ports never hold a candle to the perfectly optimized PS2 1st party exclusives). If a game was ported from the PS2 to XBOX, the XBOX could do pretty much everything the PS2 could do generally. So it was a perfect port (usually with some minor imporvements) and forgiven for being a ported PS2 game.
Now that the consoles are similar in overal performance they make the differences in acrhitecture stand out more(includes Storage, HD, Online services and other differences too). And they are big differences. Variable costs play a much bigger role than before because of this, and in order to make as less costy port and as identical port as possible this variable cost should be as minimal as possible. Simply put even if each console can do perfectly or replicate perfectly anything the other can it would invoilve too much money, time and effort consumption that doenst quarantee any or enough extra returns to compensate for the extra cost.
From a business/publisher/stockholder perspective this is a waste. if an extra spent cost or investment doesnt quarantee or trasnlate to extra Net profits it shouldnt be done at all. They arent government public companies. They are private competitive companies with risks.
Even if Konami does take time to exploit some advandages for each console these will be minimal compared to the costs they would have spent trying to exploit fully the differentiation in advandages each one has.
(for both cost reasons and for enabling them to "mimick" or replicate well everything in some form what is available in one version to the other )
PS Just a personal comment: Personally since I am very attached to the MGS series (and I can go as far as to say that it has a sentimental value for me) I am saddened by this reality
PS2: DONT CHOP MY POST
Last edited by a moderator:
I decided to duck back into this thread after all to see where it was up to.
Pretty much.
Gameplay mechanics and art styles are very portable. And in the case of the 360 and PS3, the two are so close in capabilities, and so much of their power is spent on eyecandy anyway that the idea that one will see "gameplay the other can't handle" is laughable.
Even if you have to find workarounds, alter timings and update rates, rewrite a few algorithms or whatever, this nonesense that "Cell+RSX" is going to allow a type of gameplay you can't mimic on the 360 or PC is pure fanboy mental safety buffer zone.
Same for "Xenon + Xenos" or whatever. Xenos, its eDRAM and its extra 64 MB of memory (or whatever it is now including resolved AA frame buffers and all that) isn't going to allow a type of gameplay, or gameplay experience that you couldn't effectively match on the PS3.
The question is not whether it can be done, the question is whether it's worth the time and money to make it happen.
Pretty much.
Gameplay mechanics and art styles are very portable. And in the case of the 360 and PS3, the two are so close in capabilities, and so much of their power is spent on eyecandy anyway that the idea that one will see "gameplay the other can't handle" is laughable.
Even if you have to find workarounds, alter timings and update rates, rewrite a few algorithms or whatever, this nonesense that "Cell+RSX" is going to allow a type of gameplay you can't mimic on the 360 or PC is pure fanboy mental safety buffer zone.
Same for "Xenon + Xenos" or whatever. Xenos, its eDRAM and its extra 64 MB of memory (or whatever it is now including resolved AA frame buffers and all that) isn't going to allow a type of gameplay, or gameplay experience that you couldn't effectively match on the PS3.
The question is not whether it can be done, the question is whether it's worth the time and money to make it happen.
Last edited by a moderator:
I played the PS2 version through first, and then the GC version.
The GC version looked, and sometimes sounded, nicer. I didn't particularly enjoy the GC version any more though, other than a few points where it was nice to sit back and go "wow, that's pretty cool for a GC", or "that's a pretty effect". Both had the same gameplay and the same art style. The GC version was slightly more atmospheric, but normally this wasn't in my thoughts.
Swapping disks on the playthrough of the GC version also did not bother me. At all.
Who's making up "logics" now?
All potential returns from projects are discounted on risk, just because something is risky doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. As long as the port is relatively cheap, stockholders are more lenient to take risks. (Or if the potential returns are high compared to the initial risk).
Risk doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. High risk projects, always means higher potential returns. Investors make a killing on calculated risk every single day.
Come on, this is basic financial theory.
The rest of your post, is this big case about how this would be soo expensive to port. Porting is just a matter of hiring a dozen coders that downgrade\tweak it enough for it to run. I'm not even gonna get into that speculation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh NOO...Not your assumptions again!
Where did I say that companies are COMPLETELY TOTALLY UNDISPUTABLY 100% RISK AVERSE!!
You take one word, assume too much in it and you make an arguement and a big deal out of it edit: And ignore all the other important parts of a post!
Nesh, then rewrite your goddamn posts, so people cannot make mistakes like that, if this is not what you meant. Write your statements so they don't leave room for big misinterpretations.
This is a bold, statement, that does not open for any other interpretation than "if its risky its shouldn't be done at all". It goes against everything called finance..
Which is a completely ridiculous statement.
Instead of saying i'm making assumptions all the time, i suggest you do some more careful wording and try to provide your actual meaning and point in a case where its hard to misinterpret.
And no i didn't ignore the rest of your post, i said im not going to speculate in something you draw up from thin air about porting.
This is a bold, statement, that does not open for any other interpretation than "if its risky its shouldn't be done at all". It goes against everything called finance..
Which is a completely ridiculous statement.
Instead of saying i'm making assumptions all the time, i suggest you do some more careful wording and try to provide your actual meaning and point in a case where its hard to misinterpret.
And no i didn't ignore the rest of your post, i said im not going to speculate in something you draw up from thin air about porting.
Last edited by a moderator:
I cant believe you are still continuing with your assumptions! You take things to the other level of what the other person said.
There is nothing bold in he fact that the less the probability of gaining net profits, and the more chances there are for losses the more relactunt companies are at taking such decisions.
You grasp on one or two words, avoid the whole point and start making a huge deal out of it.
There is nothing wrong with my post. I cant just guess, rewrite and think of every single word I write only because you might take things out of context.
But you didn't say that. You made a big case about how this port may or may not be expensive. Then you say a completely absolute statement about risk.
I'm not making any assumptions, I'm commenting on a absolute statement you made in English. Its not an assumption, i understand what you said there, you may have meant something else with your statement, but it DOESN'T say anything else.
Your inability to understand the words your posting is not my freaking fault.
What the....???
The problem is that you assume I implied something so absolute in my original post!!
You want things way too cleared for you and explicit otherwise you will try to find the perfect chance to argue for something that wasnt clearly said!! Thats your problem not mine!
The problem is Nesh, that you either have the inability to read what you actually said but YOU DID say something so absolute in your original post:
This is an absolute statement. It says "bla bla bla if an extra spent cost or investement doesn't guarantee or translate to extra profits it shouldn't be done at all."
And i explained to you that "All potential returns from projects are discounted on risk, just because something is risky doesn't mean it shouldn't be done... etc"
You may have meant something else with the part i quoted, BUT ITS CERTAINLY DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU MEANT.
Go take a dictionary, and look at what the words you posted actually mean, and stop blaming everybody else from assuming stuff based on what you said, because of your own inability to understand the literal meaning of your own words.
Last edited by a moderator:
No. The problem is that you have one way at interpreting someone's posts. You always go to the extreme.
It certaintly doesnt explicitly say what you assumed I ment either
You assumned so much from just one word,,,,ONE WORD!!WHICH IS quarantee.
And decided to show off your supposed expertise in financing
Oh and btw: You are assuming too much on other people's posts as well. Perhaps we all need a dictionary except you. Oh and a few others I ve noticed doing the same thing as well on other people's posts
It certaintly doesnt explicitly say what you assumed I ment either
You assumned so much from just one word,,,,ONE WORD!!WHICH IS quarantee.
And decided to show off your supposed expertise in financing
Oh and btw: You are assuming too much on other people's posts as well. Perhaps we all need a dictionary except you. Oh and a few others I ve noticed doing the same thing as well on other people's posts