*spin-off* Multiplatform... stuff. Something Dark Side.

[assurdum]

Well, contrary to popular forum believe the ps3 vesions of games can't always be expected to always keep up with the 360 versions given the ps3's older hardware, more limited ram setup and higher bottlenecks list. If they can keep both versions fairly close then that's really impressive in my mind.




Lol I'm actually the same way, I can't stand the thought of unchecking a graphical feature on a PC game, although I have had to do that selectively sometimes on the ones that really impact performance. Sometimes you can downgrade just one setting, like shadows for example, and get a huge boost in performance depending on your hardware.




It should be noted that the "Sony sent a team over" PR blurb, at least in the past, meant they sent a single Sony dev over just to see if there were glaring things being done wrong. Of course even after having done so it doesn't mean that anything was actually found to have been wrong but it still sound good, pr wise, to say "Sony sent a team over". Recommended coding practices are pretty bog standard nowayds on ps3, it's really not a mystery to anyone as to what to do and not do on that machine. Likewise I'm fairly sure the Crytek boys know their way around the limits of Nvidia 7 cards.




I think the moral of the story, which I guess shouldn't really be surprising, is never believe a single word that pr spews out at anytime on any game, ever.

Contrary to the most of people who said that, EA & Ubi games continue to be pretty identical on both. 360 can doing ever better, with the bottleneck edram (10 MB) & 'subtle' cache? Both hardware are terrible today, & 360 has its limits how the ps3, but I'm not have biases to a bad porting on 360, only for that.

 

[kagemaru]

Contrary to the most of people who said that, EA & Ubi games continue to be pretty identical on both. 360 can doing ever better, with the bottleneck edram (10 MB) & 'subtle' cache? Both hardware are terrible today, & 360 has its limits how the ps3, but I'm not have biases to a bad porting on 360, only for that.

This doesn't really go against what he's saying. Those EA and Ubi games could just be designed to run better on both platforms. Comparing games like Dead Space 2 or Assassins Creed Brotherhood to Crysis 2 doesn't seem appropriate IMO. I think it's all how the games are designed, and Crysis 2 is pushing both the 360 and ps3, almost too hard.

Eh either way I'm just curious to see how the cryengine will evolve over the next few years on each platform.

 

[assurdum]

This doesn't really go against what he's saying. Those EA and Ubi games could just be designed to run better on both platforms. Comparing games like Dead Space 2 or Assassins Creed Brotherhood to Crysis 2 doesn't seem appropriate IMO. I think it's all how the games are designed, and Crysis 2 is pushing both the 360 and ps3, almost too hard.

Eh either way I'm just curious to see how the cryengine will evolve over the next few years on each platform.

I'm not saying he is totally wrong but there are something 'uncorrect' in his statement. Well, it seem to pass the idea which when the multi on the ps3 are technically worsen of the 360, means the engine is push so hard both but ps3 can't more,, when we have identical multi the engine not push so much the machines just because it was optimized at the better... don't let me wrong, I'm not try to blame anyone, but that continue statement has completely nosense... every multi engine try to push harder both platform, in different way, Cryengine 3 not have nothing of so different of the others. Why I tries to said, that engine seems to push the ps3 how was an hardware gpu based how 360, when notoriously ps3 doing better things in the deferred process than the 'real time' works... I think it's a totally wrong approach to optain the better of the ps3, tries to do the same things of 360 & in the same way. The last leaked of the ps3 version give me that impression, more than a time. Obviously imho.

 

[Ruskie]

We don't know exactly how Crytek uses PS3.Its definitely not a port and development of Crysis 2 is like developing exclusive,even better,everything is real time.Tools are marvelous and it seems easy to get it going.With shown papers they did have some great numbers for SSAO,real time GI and lighting all done very fast on both consoles.

Its hard to say but its not a situation like GTA IV.I would say that ultimately you lack what,20-30 megs on ps3.That could easily be a reason.Plus you don't have the bandwidth of eDRAM and you can't get past that since you are not developing a game that "suits" PS3 and dump things that do not suit it.All platforms have to include same assets and effects and its hard when you are bottlenecked by things like memory and bandwidth.

 

[assurdum]

We don't know exactly how Crytek uses PS3.Its definitely not a port and development of Crysis 2 is like developing exclusive,even better,everything is real time.Tools are marvelous and it seems easy to get it going.With shown papers they did have some great numbers for SSAO,real time GI and lighting all done very fast on both consoles.

Its hard to say but its not a situation like GTA IV.I would say that ultimately you lack what,20-30 megs on ps3.That could easily be a reason.Plus you don't have the bandwidth of eDRAM and you can't get past that since you are not developing a game that "suits" PS3 and dump things that do not suit it.All platforms have to include same assets and effects and its hard when you are bottlenecked by things like memory and bandwidth.

Clear, I know, it's the exact thing what I have said. I'm not sure that was so suit for the ps3 hardware, because what I see seem exclusively with in mind maximize gpu processes than post processing; it isn't exactly the best way to push harder the ps3, it need only just to see the sony first parts approach. The physics probably are the only which could seen so 'sweet' on the ps3.

 

[Ruskie]

Clear, I know, it's the exact thing what I have said. I'm not sure that was so suit for the ps3 hardware, because what I see seem exclusively with in mind maximize gpu processes than post processing; it isn't exactly the best way to push harder the ps3, it need only just to see the sony first parts approach. The physics probably are the only which could seen so 'sweet' on the ps3.

I don't think I understand you very well.Do you suggest they are not using post processing extensively or?

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

We don't know exactly how Crytek uses PS3.Its definitely not a port and development of Crysis 2 is like developing exclusive,even better,everything is real time.Tools are marvelous and it seems easy to get it going.With shown papers they did have some great numbers for SSAO,real time GI and lighting all done very fast on both consoles.

Its hard to say but its not a situation like GTA IV.I would say that ultimately you lack what,20-30 megs on ps3.That could easily be a reason.Plus you don't have the bandwidth of eDRAM and you can't get past that since you are not developing a game that "suits" PS3 and dump things that do not suit it.All platforms have to include same assets and effects and its hard when you are bottlenecked by things like memory and bandwidth.

The issue I have with things like this is that these multiplatform games make use of the 360's strengths while not making use of the PS3's strengths. Why didn't they pick a resolution that doesn't fit in eDRAM perfectly, etc., etc? That's, clearly, one of the 360's greatest strength when used in such a way. The 360 versions, generally, get the red carpet treatment. That's, probably, why 1st party exclusives seem to get a lot more performance out of the PS3.

 

[Ruskie]

The issue I have with things like this is that these multiplatform games make use of the 360's strengths while not making use of the PS3's strengths. Why didn't they pick a resolution that doesn't fit in eDRAM perfectly, etc., etc? That's, clearly, one of the 360's greatest strength when used in such a way. The 360 versions, generally, get the red carpet treatment. That's, probably, why 1st party exclusives seem to get a lot more performance out of the PS3.

What strengths?Do we know how SP looks like?Do we know their bottlenecks?Do we know how they use SPUs and RSX?As I said,they implanted lots of things in console version of game(HDR,real time GI,bokeh effect,camera/object motion blur,SSAO etc.) and with couple of those you could say are "played" on PS3 strengths.They showed their timings which a lot of 1st party developers would like to achieve,maybe memory or bandwidth was their bottleneck and higher resolution wasn't possible?

And why would they pick resolution that exceeds eDRAM memory?It seems like you are talking like thats intentionally that alot of major developers like R*,Crytek,Treyarch/IW etc. gimp PS3 version.

In the end,they have an engine to sell.They said that they run all major things on SPUs and thats why their engine should be first choice for 3rd party.Maybe this is all because people expected that PS3 pulls ahead(we don't know yet how will it turn out) based on what it showed in games like UC2 and KZ3.