These are official shots and were accompanied with the press release. Even though the images are "soft" you can still see downgrades in textures and geometry.
I would in no way say the PS3 is inferior to Xbox 360 bcause of this though.
Virtua Tennis 3: PS3 version a little better (IGN)
- Thread starter ManuVlad3.0
- Start date
These are official shots and were accompanied with the press release. Even though the images are "soft" you can still see downgrades in textures and geometry.
I would in no way say the PS3 is inferior to Xbox 360 bcause of this though.
In his defence ,those latest shitty 360 F.E.A.R shots are there too
http://images.xboxyde.com/gallery/public/3951/1037_0001.jpg
http://images.xboxyde.com/gallery/public/3951/1037_0004.jpg
There are officially released 360 shots that look like ass as well (as Darkon pointed out). Doesnt mean the 360 version is downgraded though.
Because of the way you write I'm not sure if there is sarcasm there or not... Just wondering...
Why? No-one's answered my question yet! What is it about the differences in architecture that's making for the differences we're seeing? Anyone know what API Sega are using on the arcade board to access the GPU? Are they going through DirectX or OGL, or poking around hardware registers directly? If the latter that'd give a reason. If going through a higher level language then I don't see what's holding Xenos back.
Well my guess is that if it's faster to port they are able to more easily add things to improve it before ship date.
I already answered your question Shifty
Seriously dev team probably has something to do with it along with the nvidia connection. Overall though I don't think there's much story here as both titles are 6+ months away but I see the point as this is one of the few titles which at this point is looking better on ps3 than 360.
I honestly couldnt tell ya, maybe Vysez could clear up the pros and cons of that situation.
All I know is sega has been pretty happy about it all, claiming faster, better, and easier ports all around. This old podcast with the sega rep is a good listen...
http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/Podcasts/072806.mp3
or the "07/28/2006" dated podcast on this page
http://1upyours.1up.com/
All I know is sega has been pretty happy about it all, claiming faster, better, and easier ports all around. This old podcast with the sega rep is a good listen...
http://zdmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/Podcasts/072806.mp3
or the "07/28/2006" dated podcast on this page
http://1upyours.1up.com/
I think we're just missing the fact that PS3 is simply 2 times more powerful than Xbox 360 and it explains all.
1)"looks better" doesnt mean "looks good but the other one doesnt"
2)I dont get the exhagerated behaviour or why you are annoyied so much about nothing
3)You can relax now. There are better things to get all stressed about
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Huh?
He wasn't upset or annoyed. He was making vast exaggerations in an attempt at sarcasm.
This really becomes obvious if you are familiar with nba2k7, which demonstrates all his above comments were clearly false.
Sarcasm is sometimes tough to read over this interweb thingy, Chef. Be more careful next time!
He wasn't upset or annoyed. He was making vast exaggerations in an attempt at sarcasm.
This really becomes obvious if you are familiar with nba2k7, which demonstrates all his above comments were clearly false.
Sarcasm is sometimes tough to read over this interweb thingy, Chef. Be more careful next time!
Huh?
He wasn't upset or annoyed. He was making vast exaggerations in an attempt at sarcasm.
This really becomes obvious if you are familiar with nba2k7, which demonstrates all his above comments were clearly false.
Sarcasm is sometimes tough to read over this interweb thingy, Chef. Be more careful next time!
I understood it was sarcasm and that his claims were deliberately false mind. What I was trying to day is that he makes such a bit fuss out of the discussion because PS3's version is claimed to look better by some that wonder if there is a connection to the capabilitites of the console being possibly more than 360's
Last edited by a moderator:
1)"looks better" doesnt mean "looks good but the other one doesnt"
2)I dont get the exhagerated behaviour or why you are annoyied so much about nothing
3)You can relax now. There are better things to get all stressed about
Who said I was stressed? I was just answering Shifty and pointing out the reasons why this title looks better on ps3.
Simple Answer: Look at the PC. ATI and NV GPUs, with very similar architectures, trade blows back and forth in games designed to the DX API. Sometimes we will see 20-40% difference in performance in a game, and then flip flop in another game. A lot of that has to do with how the game was designed and what features are leveraged as core technologies and their implimentation and optimization.
It is not hard to venture why a game being designed around a GPU like NV40 would port well to a G70 derived GPU. G70 is just a bigger, faster NV40.
Now take a game that has (a) an engine built around NV40 and (b) art assets built around NV40 and then asked a lower level dev team to match the port quality of a classy act like AM2. Heck, I am willing to bet AM2 can make a game from scratch significantly superior to these other guys, let alone port a game on an easier dev path. Toss in the fact the fact we know there are some quarks to Xenos, specifically in the API and drivers, and a less-skilled dev team doing more work is going to get less results.
Think of it this way: Sega gave their AAA team the easy job and gave their B team the hard job. They both get 18 months to port. The better developer with the easier job is going to get better results.
There is a message here, but it isn't about hardware.
The message is this: Sega is putting money on the PS3. Hardware is a mere abstraction to the end result. If companies like Sega are going to (a) build their games around hardware that ports well to the PS3 and (b) stick their best developers on PS3 versions of games, we can all deduce that Sega is behind the PS3 strongly and that the PS3 will get the better looking games from Sega in many situations.
Hardware is relevant, but it really comes down to developers. You stick Kojima on the Xbox 360 and you know he is going to make one of the top 10 looking games on the platform; and vice versa you stick Bungie on the PS3 and you know they are going to turn out a nice looking game. Part of this is these devs get time and money to reach their visions, but the other part is straight up skill. Comparing a B level dev team porting their game is a case by case thing. Until we know more about VT3 there isn't much to say. One thing I have noticed is the PS3 version has really nice self shadowing which seems to be lacking from the Xbox 360 version.
The time, budget, and skill of the dev team also come into question mind you. Take a look at Venom (Prey) and Raven (Quake 4) and how limited tools and time significantly hampered ports. Financially it was not viable to do a clean build and reading the Venom blog it was made pretty clear that they were waiting for the code from Raven, and then when they saw how choppy Q4 was and how hacked the code was they had to start fresh, etc with limited time.
At some point we will begin seeing games developed independantly by quality dev teams. e.g. Madden has 2 dev teams. I don't know if one is better than the other (so there is that factor), but Madden is a case of a company having 2 teams build separate builds designed for the platforms. I think future games like that may tell us a little more about the hardware, but more likely looking at the average budget of games, developer skill and profiles, and the average quality of games across the board will tell us more than individual titles. i.e. Trends versus anectodes.
But assuming both teams are using the same base models and textures from the arcade machine.
How does this explain the PS3 version having the crisper textures when both have 512MB ram + having more put aside for os purposes.
And PS3 having better ingame models when performance between the two machines is believed to be no different.
Both these issues would also mean artists having to optimise art assets because of possible performance/ram issues between the machines.
Sega might be able to squeeze more performance out of RSX than Sumo can from Xenos but there should be no difference in texture quality.
How does this explain the PS3 version having the crisper textures when both have 512MB ram + having more put aside for os purposes.
And PS3 having better ingame models when performance between the two machines is believed to be no different.
Both these issues would also mean artists having to optimise art assets because of possible performance/ram issues between the machines.
Sega might be able to squeeze more performance out of RSX than Sumo can from Xenos but there should be no difference in texture quality.
It's quite possible to confuse crisper textures with something like AF. I'd bet the textures between the two are likely the same res and everything, but the PS3 version might have had AF running at the time of the demo. A lot can change between now and release too -- for every VT3 showing PS3's power, there is another multiplatform title that has been shown better on 360 (Madden?). With hardware this close together, it truly is a developer talent issue and will likely have very little to do with the actual hardware between the two in most cases (sure there will be things that one console does better than the other and vice-versa, but overall they seem very comparable -- certainly more so than any previous generation).