*run-off* Multiplatform development over the years... stuff

[Laa-Yosh]

So is there a general undestimation of the 360's capabilities and exaggeration of the PS3's?

In general, many of the first party PS3 developers are more experienced and better financed then their X360 counterparts, particularly the art departments. People generally like Fable and Halo, but they still don't look as good as UC2 or KZ2.
With the exception of Epic, I couldn't really list a MS-exclusive developer that could stand up to Naughty Dog or the God of War 3 team; and even in Epic's case, it's a bit superficial (Gears) and the multiplatform nature of UE3 probably also limits their artists a bit.

So compared to PS3 versions of multiplatform games, the Sony exclusives are utilizing the hardware more efficiently in two aspects: better programing and better art.
It also helps that all these exclusives are linear and spatially constrained, thus allowing for even more optimization and streamlining; whereas the above mentioned Halo and Fable games have more open, sandbox-type game worlds.


How this alters gamer's impressions and expressions does not belong in this thread IMHO, even if there's a lot of exemplary posts to study...

 

[nightshade]

For a quick and recent example, Split/Second has full 720p PS3 version vs. a significantly downscaled X360 version*. But feel free to browse through DigitalFoundry's face off features; I recall numerous cases where the PS3's advantages have been utilized, including shadow filtering quality (COD4/MW2 for example?).

But Split second (360) has superior smokes & particles while MW2 (360) has better AF & a far more prominent bloom...compared to PS3 ver.
But still you are right in that few devs do try to use best of both hardware...and try to balance between their pros & cons.
And this is what I want, ie. want majority of games to follow this route instead of all advantage to one platform & all disadvantages to other ?

Anyways, I doubt if anyone here is complaining about the resolution itself...I rather think its more to do with the fact that, one specific version has to go through further downgrades apart from the resolution & in the end still remain the worse performing version.

 

[assurdum]

In general, many of the first party PS3 developers are more experienced and better financed then their X360 counterparts, particularly the art departments. People generally like Fable and Halo, but they still don't look as good as UC2 or KZ2.
With the exception of Epic, I couldn't really list a MS-exclusive developer that could stand up to Naughty Dog or the God of War 3 team; and even in Epic's case, it's a bit superficial (Gears) and the multiplatform nature of UE3 probably also limits their artists a bit.

So compared to PS3 versions of multiplatform games, the Sony exclusives are utilizing the hardware more efficiently in two aspects: better programing and better art.
It also helps that all these exclusives are linear and spatially constrained, thus allowing for even more optimization and streamlining; whereas the above mentioned Halo and Fable games have more open, sandbox-type game worlds.


How this alters gamer's impressions and expressions does not belong in this thread IMHO, even if there's a lot of exemplary posts to study...

UE3 it's multi but it was made with in mind the 360 hardware. The RAM upgrades is done thanks to Epic suggest. Another point (although it isn't argue of topic) and absolutely I'm not condivide is try to pass that 360 how untapped...Bungie has worked esclusively a lot time for M$, Molineaux work exclusively for 360, there are other internal studio, alan wake more of 5 years of develops...I don't understand what also to do on 360 again to prove is quality. The best there are proved just in the multi. For the matter of Rage best open world game we can do on ps3, probably will see when someone coming out exclusively on the ps3; to understand what is it possible & what not at least, to have a more realist approach

 

[SteelOak]

I couldn't really list a MS-exclusive developer that could stand up to Naughty Dog or the God of War 3 team

Rare have some talented guys ,Banjo is really good looking game and PGR4 from Bizzare Creations was IMO also stunning but they are in Activision now.
sorry for off-topic

 

[Ruskie]

So...now people are comparing UC2 and KZ2 to RDR?

 

[dabomb665m]

I swear... some of the things I see being "made up" or "speculated" just to praise/defend a console is astounding.

Firstly... speculating that the devs spent or did not spend resources based on total console penetration BY REGION is ridiculous. There's no way that small discrepancy of 10 million units "in the western region" would've made any significant impact on how resources were spent. Not to mention the gap is closing almost every month if both EU/US is tallied as "western". Listen to yourselves. Out of the 10 extra million 360 users, how many do you realistically think falls in the category of your target demographic? (read: will buy your game) Is that number significant enough?

And then theres the further speculation that they didn't consider asian sales, which I'm sure the lead of the ps3 in that region would bring the total sales target of the shipped game much more in line between the two consoles. I can't imagine some of the senior b3d members would even believe this is a major factor.

It's obviously more complicated than just looking at the number of units shipped in each region as a deciding factor on how much resources will be used for console parity. There's the nature of the engine, deadlines etc. Saying that the devs simply didn't spend time on it because they felt it wasn't worth their time/effort -at this point in the console race- is ludicrous.

Why can't people just accept that yes, the 360 does certain things better while the PS3 does other things better... even if there is a ram disparity. Why make arbitrary speculations/arguments about first party sony devs getting "more funding" and being "closer to sony" to defend the 360 when it comes to exclusives? Do you know exactly how much money is being flung around in all these developers? Are you claiming that Microsoft has less to spend than Sony?

No one knows these things... so it's just ridiculous to speculate and use them in arguments as facts or otherwise. It's a really simple concept... give credit where credit is due.



Back on topic... I don't have the ps3 version to compare, but the 360 version has surprised me more than a few times on photorealism. At a certain mid range distance, the more "important" characters look absolutely amazing. Up close, you start to see the imperfections... but it's to be expected in free roam/sandbox games.

What I don't understand is how the framerate can sometimes be so bad.... given that there isn't much around at all. GTA4 had all the buildings and what not... but like joker was saying about another game using buildings to prevent LOD... I think that may be the case with GTA4 vs RDD... Maybe the buildings in GTA4 actually helped the framerate? In theory, RDD should hold a more steady framerate but it doesn't. The lighting engine seems to have been updated though and along with maybe other things, which may be causing the framerate drops.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Firstly... speculating that the devs spent or did not spend resources based on total console penetration BY REGION is ridiculous. There's no way that small discrepancy of 10 million units "in the western region" would've made any significant impact on how resources were spent.

Try again, then.
Japan is practically nonexistant for the sales of a game like RDR, or Halo, or Uncharted 2. These kinds of games usually sell less then 100K units altogether in that region, so consoles sold there can not be counted as an available market.

And 10 million is not a small discrepancy, more like a 33% advantage for the X360 over the PS3.

Out of the 10 extra million 360 users, how many do you realistically think falls in the category of your target demographic? (read: will buy your game)

Practically all of them, just look at MS's 3rd party sales.

Is that number significant enough?

I'd say yes, but maybe Joker can chime in as well...

And then theres the further speculation that they didn't consider asian sales, which I'm sure the lead of the ps3 in that region would bring the total sales target of the shipped game much more in line between the two consoles.

The rest of Asia is usually counted as "EU + other regions", in other words the 10 million discrepancy is counted with these sales included in PS3's total.

It's obviously more complicated than just looking at the number of units shipped in each region as a deciding factor on how much resources will be used for console parity.

It is not the deciding factor, but it is an important one.

Why can't people just accept that yes, the 360 does certain things better while the PS3 does other things better... even if there is a ram disparity.

I'm not the one who has any problem accepting that, just so you know...

Why make arbitrary speculations/arguments about first party sony devs getting "more funding" and being "closer to sony" to defend the 360 when it comes to exclusives?

Because it is obviously true?

Do you know exactly how much money is being flung around in all these developers?

We do know some numbers, and there's plenty of information enough to draw some conclusions. For example hiring Hollywood talent (and not just actors, but various tech personnel) isn't exactly the sign of a small budget.

Are you claiming that Microsoft has less to spend than Sony?

They are willing to spend less, and it is quite evident based on their quarterly reports. Whereas Sony's losing money at an amazing pace which can't be explained by hardware and PSN losses only. All included, they've probably been spending more on software development then what they're earning back.

 

[assurdum]

[...]

Sorry but there are a lot of ot here and some reply really seems more a personal conclusions than a statement.The gap in the rest of the world is between 360 compared to ps3 not viceversa. 360 sell only in us & uk, it's pretty note (and I follow the statics). And the parts of hollywood cast

 

[assurdum]

There's quiet a discussion going on. Sadly as expected almost complete silence of Rockstar in regard to their tech prevents any factual discussion.
As for Joker statement one can read it as he wants ie the Ps3 is not superior or the 360 is a bit better, as N_B put it he could make the his statement clearer but as long as Sony first party developers deliver perception won't change.
Actually the most important part in this discussion and in Joker454 is indeed about perception. I don't know how systems are perceived in US but I can speak for France, the word on the street (many forum (sorry I'm an internet freak...), discussion with random people) is that the PS3 has quiet the lead over the 360. Actually lately things have gotten even worse and lot of people think that the 360 is maxed out whereas PS3 will still deliver more and more. As I said I don't know for others countries till by watching Joker454's attitude I feel like this trend is not France specific.

I think it's the reason behind most of his statements, it's not to start wars about a 100x100 difference in pixels count but I guess he tries to change how the 360 hardware is perceived at least on this very forum. N_B put it nicely it's a lost battle as long as Sony delivers but actually it's imho worse one or two games highly impressive games on the 360 would change nothing simply because whether the 360 is a bit better or not the differences with top of the line Sony product will be perceived as marginal by the intended market, it would also a bit too late to change anything.

This discussion should happened imho in the general forum instead of here because it has more to do with marketing than with technical considerations, perception about the 360 most likely will never change, it's something Ms will have to consider for future: expectations for a given product are set at its launch that's it.

Sorry but do you think people here thinking ps3 is a little better of 360 only for the sony pr relations? Joker454 I'm not glad to talking of someone if not directly but anyone said here is a stupid, an incompetent etc etc; yeah great developer, but it's pretty obvious is thought about the ps3 and not miss the chance to repeat in any post, but than what mean? I know different developers personally who said the total opposite of him and not work to sony, but I'm not use the forum to said how 360 suck with is limited Edram for example in FFXIII etc etc...I'm not interesting in this type of discussion... I'm try only to understand how we can gone wrong on the ps3 when a multi not reach the 360 level, what we could to do in alternative and so on. I don't think said 'but better of this on the ps3 is impossible' is an argue.

 

[2real4tv]

Someone brought up NGS2. I think this is a good example where the same game was developed but with different engines and the strengths and weaknesses were shown.

 

[assurdum]

Someone brought up NGS2. I think this is a good example where the same game was developed but with different engines and the strengths and weaknesses were shown.

Yeay, I really appreciated the tecmo approach to ps3 hardware. Great works. An example how optimize an engine with different hardware without to use expansive resources.

 

[GuestLV]

I'm try only to understand how we can gone wrong on the ps3 when a multi not reach the 360 level, what we could to do in alternative and so on.

We, mean developers?OK Spend less time to chating on forums :smile:

 

[GuestLV]

Someone brought up NGS2. I think this is a good example where the same game was developed but with different engines and the strengths and weaknesses were shown.

I think NGS engine completely rewritten for PS3 If you wish to wait PS3 RDR 2 years more ....

 

[nightshade]

I think NGS engine completely rewritten for PS3 If you wish to wait PS3 RDR 2 years more ....

Well...NGS2 development started after NG2 was released, RDR was being developed side by side. And from what I recall...the engine for sigma 2 is a mix match between the engines of NG2 (360) & NGS1 (PS3)

 

[obonicus]

I think what you and others see as blame, I see as praise. Think about it, here you have a machine with rsx, which more or less is a 2003/2004 gpu design. Under normal PC circumstances it would be considered a $10 relic of a part that is hopelessly out of date. Yet here it is in 2010 being able to almost keep pace with the 360 which has a gpu that is a full generation ahead, a hunk of fast edram, and specialized msaa hardware that can do clever things beyond just msaa for free. Yet to people here what Rockstar has pulled off on the PS3 in 2010 is somehow disappointing. I find that completely bizarre. To me what they have done with RDR on PS3 is hugely impressive. It shows how important the spu's have been, and more importantly how powerful they really are to be able to pick up a lot of the slack of rsx and help it to keep pace with modern graphics. It shows how flexible the spu's really are and what can be done with them given enough time. It's quite an achievement when you think about how much specialized hand optimized PS3 spu code had to be written to make that a possibility. I'd have though you guys would have been really impressed with that but instead people are somehow disappointed! I really don't get it.

What you're saying is that they deserve an A for effort. I'm saying that there is no such thing. As you said in the Alan Wake thread, it's the results we should judge. It's entirely possible that they worked really really hard at some bad technical decisions.

Let's flip this around entirely. Let's say some game were made primarily for modern PCs. And then, when porting it to console, it turns out as a general (but not unplayable) mess. Would we really be going 'gee, but it's amazing that they got this to run on 2005 hardware at all!'

And again, you're using the same rhetoric from 2008! When GTA4's disparity was almost the norm. But this is 2010. Why should the same arguments apply so far into the generation?

Edit: and to make it clear, my stance is the following: if the PS3 really can't handle the full glory of R*'s artistic vision, then don't put the game on the PS3 -- the Housers paint themselves as artistes, I'm sure one of the world's most successful studios can afford the reduced income from an exclusive. But R*/2K want money from PS3 owners (last I checked, RDR PS3 isn't free with a copy of the 360 game, in fact it's the same price) and so the burden of producing something people aren't disappointed in is theirs.

 

[BoardBonobo]

And again, you're using the same rhetoric from 2008! When GTA4's disparity was almost the norm. But this is 2010. Why should the same arguments apply so far into the generation?

Especially considering that some of the most graphically impressive games of this generation have all be spawned from the rsx!

 

[Arwin]

And again, you're using the same rhetoric from 2008! When GTA4's disparity was almost the norm. But this is 2010. Why should the same arguments apply so far into the generation?

Because this game has been 5 years in development. See my previous post.

Edit: and to make it clear, my stance is the following: if the PS3 really can't handle the full glory of R*'s artistic vision, then don't put the game on the PS3 -- the Housers paint themselves as artistes, I'm sure one of the world's most successful studios can afford the reduced income from an exclusive. But R*/2K want money from PS3 owners (last I checked, RDR PS3 isn't free with a copy of the 360 game, in fact it's the same price) and so the burden of producing something people aren't disappointed in is theirs.

What a gross exaggeration. If you want to think about how relevant this is actually is to a lot of gamers, then remember that even a lot of critics preferred the PS3 version of GTA IV because it had a 'softer' look.

 

[obonicus]

Because this game has been 5 years in development. See my previous post.

And it was released in 2010. Being five years in development is not a real defense, since I'm not going to compare it to 2005 games, but to 2010 games. Otherwise, uh, yeah, RDR looks way better than Gun.

What a gross exaggeration. If you want to think about how relevant this is actually is to a lot of gamers, then remember that even a lot of critics preferred the PS3 version of GTA IV because it had a 'softer' look.

Hey, if they can disguise the flaws, I'm for it. But critics aren't the people they need to appease, it's the people who actually buy these games. I barely notice things like lack of anti-aliasing and framerate dips and I thought GTA4 on PS3 was messy as hell. If everyone's okay with how RDR PS3 looks, then R* have done their jobs. Is that the case?