Problem with PS3 having complicated hardware....

Ports/multiplats look worser on the PS3....

Okay so many have come to the conclusion, which is most likely true, the paticular games ported over were primary built around the 360 hardware, with certain code..which when ported over doesn't take advantage of the PS3, THATS TRUE.

but people seem to forget that the reason for this is because of the more complex hardware...devs will need to spend more time AND money to actually get the better results if not equal, depending on the skill level with devs. this obviously changes over time with devs becoming more familar. But most devs won't risk it and just make the usaul bad port..

Why do you think xbox ports of PS2 games always looked better on the xbox? better hardware and more importantly EASIER HARDWARE to work with.

since most claim the PS3 has the more raw power, it would have been nice to see this trend follow through with the PS3....but thats the price you pay with complex hardware, and the fact that MS made sure to throw in a Tuff cutom built GPU.

Thats why exclusive PS3 titles look stunning, since those first party/3rd party devs work on ONE console only...and try and max it out. etc.

You just stated what every single person here already knows. We've been down this path a lot of times over the past year and a half.Ibacai

I know, but its an interesting topic..with many still not properly informed about it.

There is nothing complicated about a 7800GT card, it is the lowest gen hardware by now, far surpassed by 360 GPU and DX10 PC GPU cardssaolin323

Since when is a game handled through GPU, alone?

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

EmperorSupreme

Max out....Maxed out by gears, LOL...come on.

The fact that its easier, can work even more wonders for improvement...and makes more sense.

Gears 2 for example, Cliffy B has stated that it'll look even better...how is a hardware maxed out within a year?

Mass effect already does stuff gears couldn't...same goes with bioshock etc.

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

EmperorSupreme

You do know that no 2ond gen game ever maxes a console, AND Gears uses 30% of the CPU as they confirmed, right ?

AND on top, it is a multiplatform engine, nothing that even remotly uses 360 hardware at all

Try the HUGE free-roaming, more stunning looking, detailed, shaded and lit than ANYTHING, forests of Fable 2, or the 36 square miles of detailed land in Alan Wake for a GLIMPSE of 360 power

[QUOTE="saolin323"]There is nothing complicated about a 7800GT card, it is the lowest gen hardware by now, far surpassed by 360 GPU and DX10 PC GPU cardsSerbiam

Since when is a game handled through GPU, alone?

Since we moved from CPU only games to graphics accelerators ? And 360 has a 3 core CPU, PS3 has one core, so again ,if the CPU could help a bit, with extra hard programming and bottneck handling, 360 would still have 3 full CPU's to handle everything, PS3 just one core, and 7 units for parallel calculations, far from anything that can be used in games properly.

Ports/multiplats look worser on the PS3....

Okay so many have come to the conclusion, which is most likely true, the paticular games ported over were primary built around the 360 hardware, with certain code..which when ported over doesn't take advantage of the PS3, THATS TRUE.

but people seem to forget that the reason for this is because of the more complex hardware...devs will need to spend more time AND money to actually get the better results if not equal, depending on the skill level with devs. this obviously changes over time with devs becoming more familar. But most devs won't risk it and just make the usaul bad port..

Why do you think xbox ports of PS2 games always looked better on the xbox? better hardware and more importantly EASIER HARDWARE to work with.

since most claim the PS3 has the more raw power, it would have been nice to see this trend follow through with the PS3....but thats the price you pay with complex hardware, and the fact that MS made sure to throw in a Tuff cutom built GPU.

Thats why exclusive PS3 titles look stunning, since those first party/3rd party devs work on ONE console only...and try and max it out. etc.

Serbiam

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]You just stated what every single person here already knows. We've been down this path a lot of times over the past year and a half.Serbiam

I know, but its an interesting topic..with many still not properly informed about it.

the person who is not informed seems to be you : mulpitplats werent developed on 360 frist because it has uncomlicated hardware, it was because the profit would have been greater on 360 anyway, in fact it is easier to dev on ps3 first and than port it on 360 (ps3 = OpenGL, x360 = DirectX) and that is what is going to happen in the near future

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

Serbiam

Max out....Maxed out by gears, LOL...come on.

The fact that its easier, can work even more wonders for improvement...and makes more sense.

Gears 2 for example, Cliffy B has stated that it'll look even better...how is a hardware maxed out within a year?

Mass effect already does stuff gears couldn't...same goes with bioshock etc.

Gears graphically >>> Mass Effect

Bioshock is arguable but it's more the art direction than the actual technology that make Bioshock looks so good.

You will not see any more major improvements graphically is my point. Developers know how to program for X360 that's what makes it so easy to develop for like you said. It's also why it came out of the gate looking like a rose, but as time goes on and people learn the PS3 architecture games will get better and better. It's happened with every playstation before and its happening with PS3. Graphically Lair kicked it off, then Heavenly Sword, then Ratchet and Clank, then Uncharted, next up is Gran Turismo. Each game you are seeing significant improvements graphically. Not seeing that with X360 games. Infact most look worse than Gears.

[QUOTE="Serbiam"]

Ports/multiplats look worser on the PS3....

Okay so many have come to the conclusion, which is most likely true, the paticular games ported over were primary built around the 360 hardware, with certain code..which when ported over doesn't take advantage of the PS3, THATS TRUE.

but people seem to forget that the reason for this is because of the more complex hardware...devs will need to spend more time AND money to actually get the better results if not equal, depending on the skill level with devs. this obviously changes over time with devs becoming more familar. But most devs won't risk it and just make the usaul bad port..

Why do you think xbox ports of PS2 games always looked better on the xbox? better hardware and more importantly EASIER HARDWARE to work with.

since most claim the PS3 has the more raw power, it would have been nice to see this trend follow through with the PS3....but thats the price you pay with complex hardware, and the fact that MS made sure to throw in a Tuff cutom built GPU.

Thats why exclusive PS3 titles look stunning, since those first party/3rd party devs work on ONE console only...and try and max it out. etc.

sambalimbo

[QUOTE="Ibacai"]You just stated what every single person here already knows. We've been down this path a lot of times over the past year and a half.Serbiam

I know, but its an interesting topic..with many still not properly informed about it.

the person who is not informed seems to be you : mulpitplats werent developed on 360 frist because it has uncomlicated hardware, it was because the profit would have been greater on 360 anyway, in fact it is easier to dev on ps3 first and than port it on 360 (ps3 = OpenGL, x360 = DirectX) and that is what is going to happen in the near future

Err, who said they were?

BTW, your basicallya admitting the 360 has better hardware DUE to easier hardware..correct?

Some ARN'T informed and think its bad ports due to the PS3 limitations of hardware...and forget that its MORE COMPLEX.

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

saolin323

You do know that no 2ond gen game ever maxes a console, AND Gears uses 30% of the CPU as they confirmed, right ?

AND on top, it is a multiplatform engine, nothing that even remotly uses 360 hardware at all

Try the HUGE free-roaming, more stunning looking, detailed, shaded and lit than ANYTHING, forests of Fable 2, or the 36 square miles of detailed land in Alan Wake for a GLIMPSE of 360 power

[QUOTE="saolin323"]There is nothing complicated about a 7800GT card, it is the lowest gen hardware by now, far surpassed by 360 GPU and DX10 PC GPU cardsSerbiam

Since when is a game handled through GPU, alone?

Since we moved from CPU only games to graphics accelerators ? And 360 has a 3 core CPU, PS3 has one core, so again ,if the CPU could help a bit, with extra hard programming and bottneck handling, 360 would still have 3 full CPU's to handle everything, PS3 just one core, and 7 units for parallel calculations, far from anything that can be used in games properly.

Gears had very bad animations and overall gerky movements..and lip synching...sometimes i found it hard to watch. Hopefully the next gears fixes that up.

i think alot of devs now are going to treat the PS3 as the primary platform and design there game around that and then move it to the 360. the PS3 is a powerful bit of kit but it has....lets just say....a temper. if u develop the game to work the way the PS3 likes to work then ure in business. since the 360 is so flexible and easy going...it can behave in much the same way. devs can devide the ram in the 360 in whatever way they want with no performance hit for example. some devs have already commented that moving from PS3 to 360 is much easier than the otherway around.

of course u still have some issues that are inherent in multiplatform development like the different architectures and the different code bases at lower levels that u need to deal with to ensure that assets work on all platforms that the game is being developed for.

its a shame sony decided to make the PS3 so bloody complex....in this day and age it really wasnt needed.

i think alot of devs now are going to treat the PS3 as the primary platform and design there game around that and then move it to the 360. the PS3 is a powerful bit of kit but it has....lets just say....a temper. if u develop the game to work the way the PS3 likes to work then ure in business. since the 360 is so flexible and easy going...it can behave in much the same way. devs can devide the ram in the 360 in whatever way they want with no performance hit for example. some devs have already commented that moving from PS3 to 360 is much easier than the otherway around.

of course u still have some issues that are inherent in multiplatform development like the different architectures and the different code bases at lower levels that u need to deal with to ensure that assets work on all platforms that the game is being developed for.

its a shame sony decided to make the PS3 so bloody complex....in this day and age it really wasnt needed.

osan0

any dev will easily state that it's easier to dev multiplats first on ps3 than port it on 360

I stopped reading after you wrote worserMongo-Boss

So what we see and read in reviews are a plain lie?

lets take the recent RB6 vagas 2 game...said to have worser framrates and textures.

Anyone got some links to this thing about devs turning to the PS3 for multiplats cause its easier?

thanks.

[QUOTE="Mongo-Boss"]I stopped reading after you wrote worserSerbiam

So what we see and read in reviews are a plain lie?

lets take the recent RB6 vagas 2 game...said to have worser framrates and textures.

Anyone got some links to this thing about devs turning to the PS3 for multiplats cause its easier?

thanks.

Serbiam

Anyone got some links to this thing about devs turning to the PS3 for multiplats cause its easier?

thanks.

Serbiam

http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=17&pt=1

but i dont remember in which part they say it

there are other websites like next gen that state it too though

[QUOTE="Mongo-Boss"]I stopped reading after you wrote worserSerbiam

So what we see and read in reviews are a plain lie?

lets take the recent RB6 vagas 2 game...said to have worser framrates and textures.

Or let's take Bully on X360. Frame rate issues on a PS2 game :lol:

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

EmperorSupreme

Oh here we go with this crap again...... 360 is maxed out, didn't Cliffy B say a quite a few times that Gears only used 40% of the 360's power. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Gears had very bad animations and overall gerky movements..and lip synching...sometimes i found it hard to watch. Hopefully the next gears fixes that up.

Serbiam

What?!?! What game were you playing?

[QUOTE="Serbiam"]

Gears had very bad animations and overall gerky movements..and lip synching...sometimes i found it hard to watch. Hopefully the next gears fixes that up.

xscrapzx

What?!?! What game were you playing?

Don't give me that. if you've played the game you would agree, and NO i 'm not talking about gameplay..but rather the realtime cutscenes.

Cheers for the links and info, fellas...

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Serbiam"]

Gears had very bad animations and overall gerky movements..and lip synching...sometimes i found it hard to watch. Hopefully the next gears fixes that up.

Serbiam

What?!?! What game were you playing?

Don't give me that. if you've played the game you would agree, and NO i 'm not talking about gameplay..but rather the realtime cutscenes.

Of course I played the game you are going to honestly sit there and say that during the cutscenes it had bad animations? Hey I guess everybody has a right their own opinion even though they are wrong.

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

xscrapzx

Oh here we go with this crap again...... 360 is maxed out, didn't Cliffy B say a quite a few times that Gears only used 40% of the 360's power. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE="Serbiam"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Serbiam"]

Gears had very bad animations and overall gerky movements..and lip synching...sometimes i found it hard to watch. Hopefully the next gears fixes that up.

xscrapzx

What?!?! What game were you playing?

Don't give me that. if you've played the game you would agree, and NO i 'm not talking about gameplay..but rather the realtime cutscenes.

Of course I played the game you are going to honestly sit there and say that during the cutscenes it had bad animations? Hey I guess everybody has a right their own opinion even though they are wrong.

Wrong?

geez you must get easily impressed....the animations and overall movements and lip syncing in gears looked gerky and unrealistic....same goes with the facial expressions, IMO. to each there own i spose....but next time you play, probably been awhile.....look closer.

i just beat the game yesturday....for the 4th time.

[QUOTE="saolin323"]

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

GARRYTH

You do know that no 2ond gen game ever maxes a console, AND Gears uses 30% of the CPU as they confirmed, right ?

AND on top, it is a multiplatform engine, nothing that even remotly uses 360 hardware at all

Try the HUGE free-roaming, more stunning looking, detailed, shaded and lit than ANYTHING, forests of Fable 2, or the 36 square miles of detailed land in Alan Wake for a GLIMPSE of 360 power

[QUOTE="saolin323"]There is nothing complicated about a 7800GT card, it is the lowest gen hardware by now, far surpassed by 360 GPU and DX10 PC GPU cardsSerbiam

Since when is a game handled through GPU, alone?

Since we moved from CPU only games to graphics accelerators ? And 360 has a 3 core CPU, PS3 has one core, so again ,if the CPU could help a bit, with extra hard programming and bottneck handling, 360 would still have 3 full CPU's to handle everything, PS3 just one core, and 7 units for parallel calculations, far from anything that can be used in games properly.

You assume too much, when in reality you have no idea if anumation like Uncharted would be possible or not on 360, evenm using one CPU out of 3, Gears uses 30% of 360 CPU too

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

SambaLele

Oh here we go with this crap again...... 360 is maxed out, didn't Cliffy B say a quite a few times that Gears only used 40% of the 360's power. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thats your opinion and not a fact. Secondly which game scored higher in GS? Also the winner is defined by games not graphics. On top of that its fanboyish to sit and make a comment such as the 360 or the PS3 being maxed out.

Ports/multiplats look worser on the PS3....

Serbiam

owww my brain...

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Serbiam"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Serbiam"]

Gears had very bad animations and overall gerky movements..and lip synching...sometimes i found it hard to watch. Hopefully the next gears fixes that up.

Serbiam

What?!?! What game were you playing?

Don't give me that. if you've played the game you would agree, and NO i 'm not talking about gameplay..but rather the realtime cutscenes.

Of course I played the game you are going to honestly sit there and say that during the cutscenes it had bad animations? Hey I guess everybody has a right their own opinion even though they are wrong.

Wrong?

geez you must get easily impressed....the animations and overall movements and lip syncing in gears looked gerky and unrealistic....same goes with the facial expressions, IMO. to each there own i spose....but next time you play, probably been awhile.....look closer.

i just beat the game yesturday....for the 4th time.

I get easily impressed??? LOL, I guess the rest of the gaming world and their reviewers are also easily impressed when they had nothing but greatness to say about the graphics when it came out back in '06. Ya sure pal I'm going to turn on gears when I get home and focus my entire time to see how Marcus Fenix's lips are moving in the cut scenes so I can sit there and write a blog about how they should fix that because it is such an intracle part of the game. :roll:

You just stated what every single person here already knows. We've been down this path a lot of times over the past year and a half.Ibacai

agreed its what i was going to say but im sure the ps3 will improve

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

Serbiam

Max out....Maxed out by gears, LOL...come on.

The fact that its easier, can work even more wonders for improvement...and makes more sense.

Gears 2 for example, Cliffy B has stated that it'll look even better...how is a hardware maxed out within a year?

Mass effect already does stuff gears couldn't...same goes with bioshock etc.

lol mass effect

that game's actual graphics suck, they just use some kind of filter effect(note:that's probably not what it's called) to make it look acceptable

anyone who's played it can tell you this

[QUOTE="Serbiam"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]

Playstation - Constant game improvement and proven long life cycles

Xbox- Easy to program for based off of PC architecture, easy to max console out early in life (Gears of War), short life cycle

mistervengeance

Max out....Maxed out by gears, LOL...come on.

The fact that its easier, can work even more wonders for improvement...and makes more sense.

Gears 2 for example, Cliffy B has stated that it'll look even better...how is a hardware maxed out within a year?

Mass effect already does stuff gears couldn't...same goes with bioshock etc.

lol mass effect

that game's actual graphics suck, they just use some kind of filter effect(note:that's probably not what it's called) to make it look acceptable

anyone who's played it can tell you this

Mass effet graphics suck, but it runs like rap on the 360 for some reason.

I dont know....they look very good to me

I'm just wondering, if gears used 30% of the CPU then can it be run on the Xbox?

Afterall, it's a 3.2GHz processor on the 360 and 733MHz on the Xbox. With a tiny bit of optimising that 920Mhz it uses could fit on the xbox! Good God, this means that the fact that my 360 is loudest when I put Gears in, I wonder how loud it'll get once we use all 3.2GHz of that power.

Sidenote:

And, to be honest, most of us here actually have very little knowledge of how these consoles really work. We can read manuals and internet articles, but most of us aren't developers so can't really say