Criterion: Nobody's maxed out PS3/360 Comments by Tom Bramwell

That's one way of calling one of your bosses (EA VP) an asshole. :D

The man talks sense!

Or Crytek (which they are).

yup. we are going to see more and better.

(on ps3 that is, not on 360 - that one is maxed out! :D)




(I am kidding okays?!)

If anyone would know, it's the Criterion guys.
The stuff they were getting the PS2 to do at the end of the last gen was amazing.

IneptPercy +1

This confusion is because there are two ways to look at performance; the first, from a performance analyser point of view (checking that all processors and buses are busy all the time - this is where the Crytek guys where coming from), and the second, from a true 'final performance' point of view (basically improving all algorythms and the game architecture - what Criterion is saying).

And yes, you can never - ever - have an algorythm or game architecture that can't be bettered. There's always room for improvement. Therefore, you can never 'max out' true final performance.

"And yes, you can never - ever - have an algorythm or game architecture that can't be bettered"

While that statement sounds awesome... it just cannot be true since it would imply that every system has infinite processing power. The Citerion guy is right... games development is all about cheating (because real 100% correct algorithms usually are too slow for gaming) and devs usually find new ways to get the same results (in the eyes of the end user) by changing their code. Since devs release a game every 2 years they usually have no chance to "maxxxxx" out their software before the next console comes along.

algorithms != rythms

"it just cannot be true since it would imply that every system has infinite processing power"

No, it doesn't imply that. I'm taking about the game's software architecture, not the system one. So while every system has finite power, there's always room for improving a game's algorythms and architecture. Of course, improvements get smaller as people get to know and share the best 'tricks' on a system. But there's no hard limit for the final theoretical performance. That's why some (crazy) people are still raising the bar on a Spectrum or Amiga.

The man talks alot of sense. Yes there will be a point in time where you will struggle to make code any more efficient, but to say that right now, a few years into a consoles life cycle... well as the guy says you will have run out of ideas.

It's just damage control trying to appease 360 fanboys. People get villified when telling the truth, that's why when Turn 10's Dan Greenwalt asked why there isn't more cars on the track for both the SP and the MP mode, his answer:

VideoGamer.com: There seems to be this thing about how many cars can be in an online race. Is there a sweet spot? Is eight enough? How does it change the dynamic of the game the higher or lower you go?

DG: It’s actually a really, really good question and something I’ve wrestled with quite a bit. There’s a fundamental design change you have to do when you go to more than around six to eight cars. Six to eight is really the sweet spot in the classical design of a racing game. Classical design of a racing game is first place is good, second place is not. It’s minor. Second place is the first loser. In real motorsport obviously that’s not the case. In real motorsport second place can be fantastic. But it’s just the way people are. And then when you build a risk reward system in a game and you always pay out number one more than number two, you’re telling people you should always restart if you got number two. So what it’s really making is kind of a two-man race and all the other cars are just fodder. You need to make a design shift if you want to go to more. You need to make it so we want you to come in 12th place in this race. And if you come in 11th place, we’re not even going to reward you more, because if you did reward them more they’re going to try and get 11th and they’re going to think 12th is not good enough. Some of the NASCAR games have done this, where they’ve got 30-something cars on track and it’s like beat Jeff Gordon. Then the AI Jeff Gordon comes in 12th place and they’re not going to pay you anymore for coming in higher, it just doesn’t matter. That’s a really good way of doing it. Now online is a really interesting one. Everyone says they want to do more cars online. I’ve got in really big races online…

VideoGamer.com: Not feeling it?

DG: Not really. That’s the issue. I’ve got in some leagues where there’s really evenly matched racers, and that can be really fun with a lot of people but it’s hard to coordinate. But the standard type of just hey I’m just going to get in some quick races, actually it’s better when it’s four players. That’s just the truth of the matter. This game is all about playing with your friends. We’ve got a lot of different modes online, a lot of rule sets we’re allowing people to blend, so they can create all sorts of co-operative matches and new Top Gear-style fun little things to do with cars, because that’s what our game’s about, cars, not racing so much. I think it’s going to be about you and your mates just having a good time with cars, not necessarily always finding wheel-to-wheel action racing. And then the last point is, there are games that say they do more cars online. And there are a couple of sims that do. There are a couple of games where if you try to get online with 12 players… good luck. It just doesn’t work. The cool thing about LIVE, we’ve proven, Forza 1, Forza 2, Forza 3, eight players rock solid, whether they’re in New Zealand versus the UK versus the US it always works. It’s always great.

Of course after saying that his game "is about cars, not racing so much", he announced the Le Mans track and racing cars. of course with only 8 cars, with no day/night cycle and not dynamic weather (he cited that he doesn't like to race in the rain). The truth Dan is that you've maxed out the 360 and if you said that, no one would buy your game and M$ would disown you.

Anybody that knows anything about videogame creation and programming knows that Criterion is spot on. You might run into performance barriers with a particular engine or particular approach but there are always ways around everything.

Algorithms. Ok. Algorithms ;)

Somehow algorythms was catchier.

Just seems like common sense to me. There will always be a way of getting that extra 5% from a console or a new trick to get lighting which looks better by cheating etc.

I completley agree developers like Crytech are just focusing on graphics mainly, there are so many ways you can expand what a console can do. Even with the graphics theres always a way to improve.

Nice one Critereon looking out for the consumer, so we aren't duped into buying another console so soon because developers claim that it has reached it's potential.

Also wow the PS3 boys came out of the woodwork right here, their exactly the same, in fact if you look the comparison screens your consoles rendering is a bit shaky and the lighting is washed out. But hey im not the one attacking another persons console because they are so insecure with their own purchase am I now

/applauds

Now fix that damn right-analogue stick x-axis look! What is this? Ninja Gaiden?

edit:

@myke6699

Don't you think you could apply the same argument to any other game? then 2 years later they could come back with someting stunning looking on the same hardware.

Yes - having more online players would be fantastic, but then you're battling 2 other things - not the capabilities of the Xbox, but the laws of physics. It's more difficult to keep the game lag/warp-free for everyone when there are more cars to track.

Then there's finance, as we all know that if there were a load of dedicated servers hosting these games, distributed around the world, then there'd be little to no problem in ramping up the number of players - YES even on the Xbox 360! Who's going to pay for that? Sony are learning this the hard way, and the gamers suffer.

/expects the usual torrent of complaints about paying £29 for 13 months of Xbox live service

I always found it funny that the "maxed out" comment came from the likes of EA who have yet to make a game that looks as good as even the first Gears of War.

myke6699: "It's just damage control trying to appease 360 fanboys."

Yes.

From those notorious 360-lovin', PS3-hatin' Criterion folks.

So far we've seen Turn 10 trash talk Polyphony Digital with digs at the boss included, then we had EA trash talk Forza and now we have Criterion trash talking EA.

The gaming press is quickly turning in to a EG comments section.

"No, it doesn't imply that. I'm taking about the game's software architecture, not the system one. So while every system has finite power, there's always room for improving a game's algorythms and architecture"

OK that was my point :) I am shocked that we have many sensible answers today ;)

I have nothing of worth to add but just wanted to say that is one of the most interesting threads in ages. No annoying each other but good debate and genuinely interesting points.

I may sound like an arse lick but we all know this happens rarely.

Colin8703 you must have Myke the uber troll on ignore then lol.

@myke6699

You are hilarious not only was your Forza rant utterly worthless since your quotes and your conclusion dont match up(seriously that was comedy gold mate, fanboyism at its best) but your first sentence took the biscuit you chose devs who have said on record they are big Sony fans and from their track record are most likely to be doing damage control for Sony... not only that but you are doing damage control of your own... theres a big sense of butthurt from you about 360 making you look the fool for all the shite you spout.(PS3 fanboys are the best source for comedy gold as far as fanboys go, some of the shite Ive heard them say about CELL, blu-ray and blue tooth... my god some people should just unplug their keyboards when they type to save them self the shame... actually whats worse they can say the most brainded things as far from reality as you can get and fail to acknowledge it when its pointed out. Kind of like getting into an arguement with Homer Simpson.)

@calgon

Doesn't everyone?

Anyway on topic... if theres one thing we should all know by now it's to take anything anyone with the word executive in their name says with a pinch of salt. The EA guy like I suggested obviously didnt get that from the teams he works with.

@Colin8703

I didn't... but that's been corrected :-)

well said.

calgon: persons who like sony are more likely to use shite ammo than persons who like 360?! they are less likely to change their opinion when confronted with good arguments? that's a bit out of touch with reality chapski.

No Brains, I think he was talking about fellow mikey. Take a look at his post history, he just comments 360 games. Bitter. Much!

Let's take a second to put the above sentence into a factual context:
myke6699
05-Nov-08 19:17:50 Considering this is EG- it's better than GoW2- Wow, 360 fanboys hide their face in shame. Now that we know that Fable II is shit and that Fallout 3 looks just as good on the PS3 (actually better), and Killzone2 will trump them all. Mark my word.
ignore poster



Anyway, regarding this "maxed out" thing..., you got to admit, it's been 3 years into this gen and you can't see the powa of the C3ll. Is it suppose to be a secret, forever kept from the populace, only to be talked about like some urban myth?
I must confess that prior to PS3 debut, I realy, realy thought that one could tell the diference between PS3 and 360 like you do between a 360 and a Wii - not only that didn't happen, when one can see some noticeable difereance it's the other way arround. If that's being "maxed out", oh please, by all means max that shit out. I just wish, for my fellow gamers sake, that PS3 dind't keep on saving herself.
And I bet mikey69 was lured into the same "clever markting".

If it's all about graphics then we are talking about Uncharted Drakes Fortune and Killzone2 for this generation.

As for maxing out a gen of consoles how long did it take devs to get their best out of the PS2? I would add the XBox in to this category but it's lifespan was cut short.

There's still a lot to come from this gen so enjoy it.

Those who maxed out are simply perhaps too lazy or not as advanced as others in being more effective with their coding, same way as Konami was perhaps at the tim ineffective to consider alternative way of using BD instead of having us all reinstalls the chapters? Do anyone expect the same issue to happen for PS3 in MSG Rising or future PS3 games?

Yup re people doing crazy stuff years later for Spectrum and other antique systems. EG Head to Head will tell you which consoles is being programmed and used more effectively.. perhaps we will see some amazing stuff decade later from both X360 and PS3 but of course the consoles would be replaced by the market long before then.

Those who hated the texture pop ins on X360 in Mass Effect NEEDS not to worry that it will be repeated in the sequel as the programmers is able to eliminate this problem and improve the transition animations (lift between decks in Normandy) as a good example of an improved efficency in the programmings.

EA have been without ideas for a long time!

I was about to comment how I hoped this would show gamer idiots what actually matters in games, but judging by this comment thread, that's not gonna happen.

I long for the day the PR boys and girls will just die of beubonic plague and we get developers talking about their games again, like in the 90s and 00's.. 00's? jeez we need a better name for that (I'm obviously excluding P. Moulineux in this vision)

imagine, if you will, that criterion decided they did like Black after all. now imagine Black 2 being set in a world like Burnout's, open world FPS gameplay. now clean up the mess you all just made in your pants cos it would be that amazing! they definitely have one of the most solid graphics engines of this gen

myke6699 - bringing the wall of text I cant be arsed to read skillz for this topic!..

Congrats!

"now imagine Black 2 being set in a world like Burnout's, open world FPS gameplay. now clean up the mess you all just made in your pants cos it would be that amazing! they definitely have one of the most solid graphics engines of this gen"


A Racing game isnt a fps game... And their graphics engines wouldnt be the same.

There's a heck of a lot you can get away with in a racing game where you never get close to anything, and never really look at anythign in detail (until the replay) that you cant do in a fps... and vice versa obviously.
♠

I have a to agree with "Dizzy".

No system has infinite power, just waiting there to be tapped or for the code to be re-written to work more efficiently. There comes a point where you just can't throw more demands at the hardware.

However, you can of course optimise or change the architecture of a game's code and that could yield improvements and efficiencies. Perf Analysers and so on just help you tell whether what you've written is making good use of the machine's capabilities.

Over & Out.

The guys are right: usually those that claim to have maxxed out the system performance are those that only have a poor performance showing, Vista being the prime exemple.

"If it's all about graphics then we are talking about Uncharted Drakes Fortune and Killzone2 for this generation. "

Uncharted looks okay, but isnt among the best looking games this gen. Killzone 2 looks very good, but Gears 2 arguably looks better.

"There's a heck of a lot you can get away with in a racing game where you never get close to anything, and never really look at anythign in detail (until the replay) that you cant do in a fps... and vice versa obviously."

OTOH as you tend to trundle a lot slower in an FPS you've got way more time to stream stuff. If Black is an openworld FPS you've got a sale right here just on general principles.

@smelly look at GTAIV (okay it's 3rd person but still) and MCLA, they both use the same engine and they're completely contrasting genres. It could work. Though it'll probably never happen /cry

He speaks sense.


@jeebthegreat

I think smelly's point is that if you optimise an engine for one job, it becomes less suitable for another. Its no secret that Criterion never used a standard flavour of Renderware for any of their games. Although the underlying engine is the same, its not exactly the same piece of software.

Maybe one way of looking at it (apologies if this is being patronisingly simple) is that you have an engine that can do loads of different things reasonably well. So if you are making a racing game you might turn certain bits off (to make some performance savings), and turn other bits up (with your new found savings). For an fps you would so the same, but with different bits of the engine being turned off/down and up.

There comes a point where you are not making things better, just bigger?

@kanagrootoo hey yeah no i realise that :) i didn't mean that black 2 would look exactly like burnout and obviously with gta and mcla they optimized the engine for certain things (i.e. cars looks way better in mcla than in gta4) it was just me dreaming that one day, just maybe, we might get black 2. that would truly be a day to remember :)