As the game is a conversion, i think i'd be right to think both teams are using game assets from the arcade machine i cant see a reason why they wouldnt.
Virtua Tennis 3: PS3 version a little better (IGN)
- Thread starter ManuVlad3.0
- Start date
As the game is a conversion, i think i'd be right to think both teams are using game assets from the arcade machine i cant see a reason why they wouldnt.
Now, this is why we say no to "X360 VS PS3" threads, simply because nothing good comes out of them.
If the thread keeps on "giving" more and more static, no matter if some posts are actually trying to have some sort of discussion going on, then it'll be the time to call it a day and put an end to this interesting debate.
That said, the topic in itself is virtually (pun intended) impossible to discuss without making some form of comparison, so I can't say that I have much hope for this thread.
If the thread keeps on "giving" more and more static, no matter if some posts are actually trying to have some sort of discussion going on, then it'll be the time to call it a day and put an end to this interesting debate.
That said, the topic in itself is virtually (pun intended) impossible to discuss without making some form of comparison, so I can't say that I have much hope for this thread.
inefficient
Veteran
There was an interview on 1UP with a Sega exec who praised the PS3 because it was only costing them in the 10's of thousands dollars to port their arcade games to PS3. While for other platforms the cost of a port was in the 100's or thousands to millions of dollars.
So one major factor could be that at least for arcade ports you get a lot more bang for the buck with the PS3.
Their xbox port is probably more expensive overall as developers had to spend a lot of time just coding it to run well. They wouldn't have had the resources to polish the game to the same level even if the 2 teams were identical in strength.
So one major factor could be that at least for arcade ports you get a lot more bang for the buck with the PS3.
Their xbox port is probably more expensive overall as developers had to spend a lot of time just coding it to run well. They wouldn't have had the resources to polish the game to the same level even if the 2 teams were identical in strength.
MechanizedDeath
Regular
As noted, assets are assets. Either they share the same art assets, or they don't. It would be pretty idiotic of Sega to have to teams making/using two different sets of art resources, but Sega isn't known for business savvy either. But I doubt it's incompetence this tme.
I see no reason why having an NVidia GPU should make a difference for a game like VT3 that should be doable on both systems. But maybe the PS3 version is further ahead, and that's why it has the upgraded assets. Maybe the 360 will get them later, who knows?
That brings the important thing. Why are so many in such a rush to draw these stupid conclusions? Is it such a long wait until November? It's like each faction wants to put the final nail in the other's coffin before the battle actually gets underway. Chillax and wait. Compare final games, or better yet DON'T. Hardware differences didn't make much of a difference this gen, did that? PEACE.
I see no reason why having an NVidia GPU should make a difference for a game like VT3 that should be doable on both systems. But maybe the PS3 version is further ahead, and that's why it has the upgraded assets. Maybe the 360 will get them later, who knows?
That brings the important thing. Why are so many in such a rush to draw these stupid conclusions? Is it such a long wait until November? It's like each faction wants to put the final nail in the other's coffin before the battle actually gets underway. Chillax and wait. Compare final games, or better yet DON'T. Hardware differences didn't make much of a difference this gen, did that? PEACE.
Ok, this point will be reiterated one more time and hopefully it will be the last.
There are two different development teams working on the port to each system. AM2 is working on the PS3 port. Sumo Digital is working on the X360 port. This should tell people that there will obviously be differences between the ports. AM2 may be VERY comfortable with the PS3 hardware as they may have already had their hands on it for a rather long time now...at least in some form. Sumo Digital will get the job done, it may just take a little while longer. Art assets are probably the same with minor differences between both ports but that is just one aspect of the overall graphics package. AM2 can probably polish things up much quicker given their experience with this sort of things.
And no more F.E.A.R talk in this thread.
There are two different development teams working on the port to each system. AM2 is working on the PS3 port. Sumo Digital is working on the X360 port. This should tell people that there will obviously be differences between the ports. AM2 may be VERY comfortable with the PS3 hardware as they may have already had their hands on it for a rather long time now...at least in some form. Sumo Digital will get the job done, it may just take a little while longer. Art assets are probably the same with minor differences between both ports but that is just one aspect of the overall graphics package. AM2 can probably polish things up much quicker given their experience with this sort of things.
And no more F.E.A.R talk in this thread.
inefficient
Veteran
Considering the Xbox360 has been retail for nearly a year now and PS3 has not even launched... the familiarity argument doesn't seem very strong.
Although you ve got a point I dont think its wise to compare consoles to PCs. Usually on PCs there is one team developing a game. They wont bother optimizing the game to work perfectly with each PC card.
On the other hand on consoles there are sometimes 2 different teams optimizing the title to work as best as possible on each hardware.
I am not sure if its a hardware performance thing that is the case here, but ofcourse its more reasonable to expect that the port on the PS3 will be easier since its more similar to the arcade board.
I think we should compare the PS3 version to the arcade version to judge if its a hardware capabilities thing
Aren't those diferences in performance shown only in framerates though? Are there cases where a game on NVxx looks better than a game on the Rxxx equivalent in texture and model details, (and vice versa of course).
From your POV, do you think the XB360 team have taken the same art assets and downgraded then for XB360? I can understand shader features making a difference, or filtering algorithms. One GPU can give nicer output than another. But if both are capable of rendering 100,000 polygons per frame with 1024x1024 textures, why would one GPU give lower quality output?
I'm thinking of art assets as being a given poly count, number of textures and texture resolution. Those things aren't architecture dependent, but performance dependent, and I don't see why Xenos would have trouble using the same assets as the 6800 and need them to be downgraded. Shaders will make a difference but not to mesh quality and shouldn't do to texture quality, unless they're doing some fancy sampling. Even then in shader power Xenos trumps 6800, so if the architecture gets that 40% reduction in efficiency for being a different GPU, it should still be able to handle the same resources on account of being faster. Sort off
Without screenshots to compare for ourselves we haven't really got much to talk about. We don't know exactly what the difference is to pin it to mesh and texture resolutions or something else. Still, going by comments it is a model+texture thing and I'm still too thick to see why a difference in architecture limits a GPU's ability to handle models and textures.
MasterDisaster
Regular
It's very simple
Example:
Version A (optimized) med textures 70 fps
Version A (optimized) Hight textures 60 fps
version playable with better settings : high textures
Version B ( not so optimized) med textures 60 fps
Hight textures 50 fps
version playable with better settings: med textures
note that in both examples the hig textures have the same hit, but optimized version ha performance room and will end with high setting
simple.
this is well known to all pc gamers that fight with setting trying to find the best playable at decent framerate
maybe the other team upgraded the look of textures (not the textures) using filters or shaders or other tech
polys and textures can be the same, but looking different in two different implementations
Given that the arcade version has different assets than either the PS3 or X360 can use due to RAM size, why is that a big deal? And given the PC and PSP versions which will require many more levels of the same assets, it's really not too difficult to believe.
I suppose last year the PS3 version was at a very very early stage. I'm surprised if it was running at all.
Running higher resolution textures will not bring a performance hit unless the jump results in texture fetches that exceed the maximum ram-gpu bandwith. From what we know about the PS3 and X360, and the resolutions being used (1k-2k textures) in most games, I really doubt that the x360 is simply incapable of using the same textures as the PS3. Take a look at the game (PS3 ss) and tell me it is more impressive than anything you have seen on the x360.
Hell, the game looks pretty damn bland, does not look to use insane poly counts (certainly not more than PGR3), incredible framebuffer effects, or superlative shaders. I'm guessing that if there is a difference between the two versions, it will come down to either 1) marketing or 2) lack of dev effort.
Is'nt Rockstar Ping Pong more focused close up, in a closed environment? While Virtua Tennis is very open, huge stadium, extended 3rd person camera angles? Is it even fair to compare the two? Wouldnt top spin be a better choice?
*Giggles*