PS3 hardware

[MetalCraze]

Ah I forgot I can't compare them because I haven't played them!

Gamespot's article with visual comparisons is just full of shoop'd fakes, part of the jewish conspiracy to put superior PS3 down, devs have the time to push X360 to its limits, but they don't have the time to do the same for PS3 and in fact spend the time doing the opposite

 

[spekkio]

Ah I forgot I can't compare them because I haven't played them!

Massive on your part!

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Kojima himself calling PS3 a weak shit

They're all weak shit, the hardware is years out of date.

I just can't face the truth that my crap is crap.

We've all noticed that skyway.

Uncharted 2 looks like crap btw.

Alright then, killzone 2.

funny thing, i recently finished god of war collection and GoW 2 looks better than most multiplatform titles.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

O GOD THIS GAME IS SO UGGERLY!

 

[MetalCraze]

Doesn't look impressive at all. Empty low-poly mountains with only textures covering them. Meh.
You should've posted something like this:
http://www.ag.ru/screenshots/uncharted_ ... 17458#show

A way better example

Kojima himself calling PS3 a weak shit

They're all weak shit, the hardware is years out of date.

Consoles are always outdated on their release date, however Kojima wasn't complaining about PS1 or PS2 (which were superior than any other console when they came out, unlike the one in question)

Alright then, killzone 2.

Looks very bad too. Everything is low detail with areas being nearly empty. But has lots of blur-effects and brown-filters to cover that.

funny thing, i recently finished god of war collection and GoW 2 looks better than most multiplatform titles.

That's because most "next-gen" multiplatform titles look like something from PS2 + shittons of ugly postprocessing to cover that up which eats all that extra power gained with newer hardware.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Looks very bad too. Everything is low detail with areas being nearly empty. But has lots of blur-effects and brown-filters to cover that.

Killzone might be a lot of things but ugly it ain't, and i'm guessing you haven't played the game because it definately isn't empty, the game pushes plenty of poly's, enemies, tracers, explosions.

funny thing, i recently finished god of war collection and GoW 2 looks better than most multiplatform titles.

That's because most "next-gen" multiplatform titles look like something from PS2 + shittons of ugly postprocessing to cover that up which eats all that extra power gained with newer hardware.

No shimmery jizzmapping in the game, no overuse of bloom, smooth animation, vibrant colour palette. I'm looking forward to playing GoW 3 sometime, if anyone can make good use of "nextgen effectz!!!" it's those guys.

 

[Luzur]

why the FUCK are you idiots arguing about which crippled, shitty proprietary hardware machine is the worst? they're both bad, why the fuck is this even a discussion?

its like Sega vs Nintendo/Commodore vs Atari all over again!

 

[spekkio]

Its like Sega vs Nintendo

:codexrage:

Commodore vs Atari all over again!

:smugcodex:

Also: it's no longer about what is good and what is BSB. ATM it's about what's more BSB...

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

This is what Skyway will make cry: Crytek Getting "Slightly More Performance" Out of Crysis 2 on PS3

At least Crytek makes an effort to optimize the game for each platform individually.

 

[Gerrard]

Crytek makes an effort to optimize the game

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Hahahahahaha Uncharted 2 looking like shit? There goes any credibility this guy might ever had.

So many factual inaccuracies in what he says that it's laughable.

Oblivion on PS3 was native 720p, while the 360 iteration was of a lower resolution. And it was not ported by Bethesda, but by a Scottish studio.

Just seems frustrated that he can't afford a PS3.

 

[Darth Slaughter]

well... everyone knows a PC was aways the best option.

Why a console?

well... for PC gamers, if they feel they must have a console, go for a PS3. Yes, I know the 360 is a better machine, and even can have better looking games than the PS3, and so on.

But on a practice point of view, if you have a good Pc, you already have an Xbox360.

Take a look on the multiplatform games, and they all have a PC version. And they look and work better on PC. PC games now are all ports anyway, and even the shitty ports like GTA4 on a good machine can run reasonably and look better than the console versions. What disappoint us is that it should work even better on a PC.

well, so why a console? Well if you want to play the exclusives, you should at least have one. when you look at 360 exclusive games, most of them have PC versions. the ones really exclusive to the 360 that are not on PC are some small games that we wouldn't care about. And to name big ones, the only exclusives i can imagine for 360 are halo 3, and gears of war 2, and they don't appeal to me enough to buy a microsoft console. It's even possible they will someday release those games for windows, and anyone could just not remove them from an inventory. Hell, halo 3 on pc would just be another shooter.

Now, we a have the japanese machine called PS3. Well, many PS3 exclusives became 360s/PC games. But whena PS3 exclusive is exclusive, it is exclusive for it only. God of war, uncharted, infamous, metal gear.

and there are those games that come for consoles (ps3/360) that are not on the PC. in this field, the 360 wins. But we all know all the games look just the same on both consoles, and the difference would only be noticed by graphix whores (which means every codexer). so, not much of a loss if you own a PS3.

So, if you want to have a console and the majority of options to play games, the PS3 is a better option.

with that in mind, i'd say that if the PC didn't exist in this reality, I'd go for a 360. After all, it's a shrunk PC. Games look more polished, has a western feel (not to many jap anime games).

Oh, and the PS3 has blu-ray. you may consider it a blu-ray player that somehow plays some games.

but you still have options: If you're rich you can buy all platforms. If you're not, you may wait 20 years and play all of these games through emulators.

 

[Luzur]

well... for PC gamers, if they feel they must have a console, go for a 8-bit/16 bit.

fixed it for ya, you had a typo right there.

 

[Xi]

When it comes to tech talk, skyway is the last person you want to listen to.

Truly, the PS3 is better because it comes with a blu-ray player. All other things being almost equal, or negligibly different. End of discussion.

 

[Darth Slaughter]

well... for PC gamers, if they feel they must have a console, go for a 8-bit/16 bit.

fixed it for ya, you had a typo right there.

well, for that, you don't have to have a console at all...

 

[MetalCraze]

So much dumb butthurt PS3 fanbois in this thread. So will anyone bother posting at least one counter argument to Gamespot's article? To Kojima? To Cliffy B?
All I can hear is - devs are just lazyyyy, they aren't lazy when it comes to X360, but lazy when it comes to PS3 (which why they spend time cutting stuff out, lazy duh)

This is what Skyway will make cry: Crytek Getting "Slightly More Performance" Out of Crysis 2 on PS3

So? I can get more performance on PC too if I will lower graphical detail. Which is exactly how Crysis 2 already looks compared to Crysis 1 - much worse. And that's exactly what devs did with a number of PS3 games in Gamespot's article - cut out some detail to get better FPS.

Just seems frustrated that he can't afford a PS3.

Indeed. I can afford a 3 times more powerful PC for the same price, except I already own a much better one.

But whena PS3 exclusive is exclusive, it is exclusive for it only. God of war, uncharted, infamous, metal gear

Ah the irony - Metal Gear - not anymore.
As for the other games - I totally have no clue why a game developed/published by Sony is exclusive to PS3

 

[CrimHead]

Here at RPG Codex, graphics make or break a system.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Now, we a have the japanese machine called PS3. Well, many PS3 exclusives became 360s/PC games. But whena PS3 exclusive is exclusive, it is exclusive for it only. God of war, uncharted, infamous, metal gear.

So, it's exclusive, except when its not?

 

[entertainer]

if you have a console i hope you get infected with AIDS from it

 

[Secretninja]

Negligible differences in graphical performance between the two. PS3 has blue-ray. Xbox costs an extra 60 dollars a year if you want to play online. What kind of retard would buy a 360 over a PS3 if they could only buy one?

 

[Volrath]

Negligible differences in graphical performance between the two. PS3 has blue-ray. Xbox costs an extra 60 dollars a year if you want to play online. What kind of retard would buy a 360 over a PS3 if they could only buy one?

Skyway.

 

[treave]

I... I didn't know skyway was a graphics whore.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

In the end what really counts is the exclusive software.

Don't know about you, but I find stuff like Demon's Souls, Heavy Rain and the upcoming Agent more interesting than Halo and Viva Pinata.

 

[Darth Slaughter]

Now, we a have the japanese machine called PS3. Well, many PS3 exclusives became 360s/PC games. But whena PS3 exclusive is exclusive, it is exclusive for it only. God of war, uncharted, infamous, metal gear.

So, it's exclusive, except when its not?

Yes. and when it is not? when they're 360's games.

and there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vi ... eration%29

Ah the irony - Metal Gear - not anymore.
As for the other games - I totally have no clue why a game developed/published by Sony is exclusive to PS3

Well, never played metal gear games. Tried PC version of 1, but didn't like it.

As for the other games, yes, they're made by sony, which means exclusivity. But if you take microsoft developed games, they are 360 exclusives? no. They make it for their windows platform. To be true, I even think all of those exclusive games would work better on PC.

Nothing can beat a mouse keyboard scheme, even if it's badly implemented in ports.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

The only fanboy here is you...of xbox of all things.

@Root, "But from all those long and technical posts, I gather there's very little difference between them, so fuck it? Okiedokie, then."

you're not wrong, the ps3 has a much better processor, the xbox has a more capable GPU.

Sony has better 1'st party developers hence the better exclusives, not so much about the hardware.

 

[obediah]

So much dumb butthurt PS3 fanbois in this thread. So will anyone bother posting at least one counter argument to Gamespot's article? To Kojima? To Cliffy B?
All I can hear is - devs are just lazyyyy, they aren't lazy when it comes to X360, but lazy when it comes to PS3 (which why they spend time cutting stuff out, lazy duh)

It's not that developers are lazy, but they have budgets and target sales numbers to hit. For this reason, they don't give a flying fuck about the potential of an architecture. What they do care about is a function of architecture potential as a function of development cost. And since most developers are mouth-breathing pseudo-developers, this function is driven by some shitty cross-platform middleware which leverages the 360 hardware much better than the PS3 hardware (through a combination of the 360 hardware being less esoteric than the PS3, and these middleware packages favoring the 360 because of early market penetration and MS backroom dealings).

From a practical standpoint it no more that the PS3 is hard to program for, than it is the PS3 is different to program for. Developers that take the time to learn a platform inside-and-out (like in the olde times) are doing fine on the PS3. Meanwhile the middleware clicky-clickers are making games that look like ass on the PS3, ok on the 360, and only marginally better on a PC super-rig that is 10X the machine the 360 is.

In summary, platform wars have always been annoying, but cross-platform development is a terrible, terrible scourge on the progress of game development.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

So much dumb butthurt PS3 fanbois in this thread. So will anyone bother posting at least one counter argument to Gamespot's article? To Kojima? To Cliffy B?
All I can hear is - devs are just lazyyyy, they aren't lazy when it comes to X360, but lazy when it comes to PS3 (which why they spend time cutting stuff out, lazy duh)

It's not that developers are lazy, but they have budgets and target sales numbers to hit. For this reason, they don't give a flying fuck about the potential of an architecture. What they do care about is a function of architecture potential as a function of development cost. And since most developers are mouth-breathing pseudo-developers, this function is driven by some shitty cross-platform middleware which leverages the 360 hardware much better than the PS3 hardware (through a combination of the 360 hardware being less esoteric than the PS3, and these middleware packages favoring the 360 because of early market penetration and MS backroom dealings).

From a practical standpoint it no more that the PS3 is hard to program for, than it is the PS3 is different to program for. Developers that take the time to learn a platform inside-and-out (like in the olde times) are doing fine on the PS3. Meanwhile the middleware clicky-clickers are making games that look like ass on the PS3, ok on the 360, and only marginally better on a PC super-rig that is 10X the machine the 360 is.

In summary, platform wars have always been annoying, but cross-platform development is a terrible, terrible scourge on the progress of game development.

There's also the fact that most "console" developers these days aren't actually console developers, they're pc developers who switched during the start of this generation. They're used to Direct X.

MS pulled a blinder with that API, more so than overpriced proprietary HDD's, WiFi's or subscription based peer to peer multiplayer.

 

[obediah]

There's also the fact that most "console" developers these days aren't actually console developers, they're pc developers who switched during the start of this generation. They're used to Direct X.

MS pulled a blinder with that API, more so than overpriced proprietary HDD's, WiFi's or subscription based peer to peer multiplayer.

That's a really good point.

I had rolled my eyes year after year at each "death of PC gaming", but as soon as MS announced the PC-clone Xbox, I knew it was here for realz.

 

[Silellak]

And someone up there mentioned that an Xbawks is basically a miniaturized pc, so that's why I went the PS3.

bad news man...all consoles are shitty crippled walled in garden versions of a pc.

Yeah, but at least the PS3 is a solid Blu-Ray player, if you care about that sort of thing.

Amusingly, some of the best PS3 and 360 games in the last few years are the cheap indie-made downloadable games on the PSN and XBLA, none of which push either machine anywhere near their limits. It's almost like graphics don't really matter, or something gay like that.

 

[Raghar]

GPU is the most important part in the gaming system with the whole performance being tied to it.

Have you played HoI3? People with fast GFX cards said it's slow. I don't have any problems with its speed. The same applies for SC and large maps. Some people had problems, I didn't waste money for fast GFX card, and it worked flawlessly.

Then there is the problem some game designers are creating theirs own rasterizers, which needs fast CPU. It has advantages, it no longer needs a high end GFX card, nor it needs DX12, even a computer without DX12 can have effects which would be out of reach for DX12 games.

Now if that's not enough - X360 also has scaling 512 MBs RAM - a laughable number of course - but compared to PS3 it can f.e. provide 384 megs for game levels making them bigger while providing 128 megs to graphics card making texture quality a victim and vice versa - on the fly. With PS3 you are stuck with 256 megs.

You are you aware about problems caused by sharing main and GFX card memory?

PS3 CPU is also a weakling.

3.2 GHz 6 cores.
for floats it's
1.28E10 SIMD operations.
for doubles it's
9.14E8 SIMD operations per core.

Considering any reasonable application uses Doubles, one core of my current CPU is faster than all six cores of P3.

PS3 has also faster memory than a common computer. On the other hand PS3 is secure system, thus allocation is slow because PS3 must authorize user to use the memory.

PS3 is not necessary slow, just developers should make algorithms and data flow specially for PS3, then write slightly different algorithms for XBOX360, then make crossbred between these two types algorithms, say the game requires computer with six cores, and be done with.

Obviously the above is basically about making three different programs with "the same" art assets. The reason why some developers jumped console wagon, wasn't to have incredible art, they jumped console wagon to earn money, which means creating three different programs would cause about three times higher developers cost for negligible return. Why would they bother?