Face-Off: Ninja Gaiden 2 vs. Sigma 2

By Richard Leadbetter Published 24 October, 2009

One game. Two platform exclusives. Which is better?

Page 1 of 3

How do you turn a game design and engine specifically designed for the architectural strengths of one console, and make it work on a competing platform with an entirely different range of technological plus and minus points? Maybe Tecmo has the answer with Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2.

Recent coverage of SEGA's Bayonetta demo has raised a number of interesting questions about some of the challenges of cross-format games development. If a game is specifically designed to make the most of the custom silicon in one particular console, is the other always doomed to be a "bad port", even if there's literally nothing the development studio can do to make a like-for-like conversion? Bayonetta's engine relies heavily on dealing with alpha textures and overdraw in general. With its "daughter die" of eDRAM connected directly to the GPU, the Xbox 360 is ideally suited to this type of work. But to put it blankly, the PS3 isn't, hence the performance penalty.

Tecmo's PlayStation 3 development team faced a similar challenge with the conversion work on Ninja Gaiden 2. Team Ninja's original code is based on exploiting all of the inherent strengths of the Xbox 360 platform, the intention being to push out as many polygons as possible based on the Microsoft console's unique architectural advantages. A like-for-like copy at the same performance level would've been an almost impossible job to produce on PS3.

Team Ninja's original performance quest was so completely single-minded that it actually resulted in a game that ran at a sub-HD resolution on Xbox 360. Native 720p was dumped in favour of an 1120x585 resolution combined with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. Using a 32-bit pixel format and a 32-bit z-buffer, the frame could be entirely rendered within the Xbox 360's ultra-fast eDRAM before being copied out to main RAM. Indeed, if our maths is right, Team Ninja's selected framebuffer format uses 99.975 per cent of the available eDRAM. The performance benefits are obvious: Ninja Gaiden 2 copes admirably with a vast amount of on-screen enemies and relatively complex environments.

In short, it's the stuff of nightmares for anyone looking to convert the game onto PlayStation 3 using traditional porting techniques. Here, the vertex-processing capabilities of the hardware are simply not a match for the Xbox 360 without some seriously hardcore coding modifications. The lashings of transparent alpha effects on the 360 code, in the form of gratuitously over-the-top blood-letting, are handled without much complaint. It's a different story for PS3, where bandwidth is at a premium. Compared to the NVIDIA 7800GTX the chip architecture is based on, RSX has half the amount of in-built Raster Operation units (ROPS) and no eDRAM to make up the difference in terms of bandwidth and fill-rate.

The Sigma team's solution to these problems is quite ingenious. It simply rebuilt the whole game completely from scratch with its own engine, "remixing" Ninja Gaiden 2 to play more to the strengths of the PS3 hardware. It's a situation only seen before a handful of times in previous cross-platform projects (Oblivion and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars spring to mind).

Right from the outset, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 impresses. There's a palpable resolution boost, for starters. The original sub-HD 1120x585 res on Xbox 360 is substituted for 1280x718 on PS3: essentially full 720p aside from pixel-thin black lines. There's even proper bona fide 2x MSAA included too, to reduce jagginess - though when the engine is stressed, edge-smoothing is dispensed with to maintain frame-rate. This higher level of detail introduces even more of a problem for the gulf in vertex performance between the Xenos GPU on 360 and the RSX within the PS3. The Sigma team's answer was remarkably straightforward: nip and tuck at the polygon count and simply ensure that the PS3 version isn't pushing too many of them around at any given point.

The shots below highlight the differences, but there are more comparisons in the polygon-specific Ninja Gaiden 2 gallery.

polygon360
polygonps3

Impressive vertex processing allows Ninja Gaiden 2 on 360 to push through a huge amount of polygons. Scenes are often cut down on PS3 in this regard, but there's usually some bonus bling to compensate.

The most obvious thing to note is that the Xbox 360 game is capable of throwing far more enemies at you, though there can be a performance penalty. Ninja Gaiden 2 revels in throwing seven or eight opponents at you at any given point (though it can go higher) while the PS3 game is more strictly limited to six or fewer in the same situations. The original 360 code doesn't hold back in the amount of cut-off limbs that pile up, while on PS3 those same appendages disappear almost instantly. Left-behind blood stains on the scenery are also noticeably pared down.

In this like-for-like stress test, we 'collect' enemy ninjas by running away from them, killing no-one, then waiting for them all to catch up. In the same situation, the 360 code has a small performance advantage. However, the 'max enemies' test sees 360 capable of handling around 17 enemies at once against the PS3's 11.

As you can see in this performance analysis video, the result is that while the Xbox 360 game can be seen to be far "busier" if you really work to stress the engine, the PS3 version still manages to keep up and even maintain an overall smoother performance thanks to the compromises the Sigma team has made. However, in like-for-like situations, the 360 is still a touch smoother. In terms of how the game stacks up look-wise in the heat of the action, yup, we've got a specific comparison gallery just for that too.

cutscene360-1
cutsceneps3-1
cutscene360-2
cutsceneps3-2

The visual differences between the two versions of Ninja Gaiden 2 manifest most dramatically in the cut-scenes.

The reduced polygon count is most noticeable in some of the cut-scenes. Where the game directors have total control of the engine's polygon budget, we get to see the in-game engine at its very best, pumping out some insane levels of detail on Xbox 360. You can see that Team Ninja cut back where possible on PS3, and also introduced a v-synced 30FPS frame limit, whereas the 360 equivalents run without a limit (often running much slower than 60FPS).

Page 1 of 3

Comments (143) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Windypops #1 3 years ago

    First!

    I should maybe read the article now. It looks very promising from the picture, I must say.
    Edited by Windypops at 24/10/09 @ 10:10

  • Xerx3s #2 3 years ago

    This article makes a shitload of assumptions that makes me raise an eyebrow. If I had any. Proper villains don't have any you see.

    /pinky

  • DFawkes #3 3 years ago

    I'm very impressed that Tecmo went to such efforts to make sure both machines were pushed as far as they could. I wouldn't feel I'd been ripped off if I decided to buy either version, with them both having their strengths and weaknesses. Quite impressive stuff I say :)

  • JonFE #4 3 years ago

    While I enjoyed NG2 on the x360, it felt unpolished and rough around the edges compared to its predecessor (especially NG Black). It certainly could have put some extra development time in good use. Glad to see that NGS2 lives up (and at certain points exceed) its x360 counterpart.
    Edited by JonFE at 24/10/09 @ 10:29

  • galerian86 #5 3 years ago

    That is quite rare, a multiplatform game that looks "brighter" on the PS3 than the 360.

  • Law07 #6 3 years ago

    All multi-plat developers NEED to do this!

  • Adi-C #7 3 years ago

    Again, very good article, thanks!

  • ParanoidZombie #8 3 years ago

    It's pretty obvious for anyone who has played bot versions that sigma has less enemies on screen, making for a very different game, that reminds me of ninja gaiden 1's shorter, "cleaner" battles. I'm addicted to NG2"s adrenaline rush, havin to face10+ reletless enemies simultaneously is just so frantic and challenging, especially on master ninja. Sigma 2 is more playable, but also more sedate. The stair fight in chapter 10 is a very weird experience on ps3: you have like 4-5 enemes on screen at the same time, while the x360 version thrown everything at you (15-20 enemies at once), which was killing the frame rate but overall it was a much more epic and fun fight IMO.

  • Moz #9 3 years ago

    Ayane on the 360 version just doesn't look like Ayane!!! What where they thinking?

  • RedPanda #10 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • DjFlex52 #11 3 years ago

    "All multi-plat developers NEED to do this!"

    @Law07

    Are you sure you want that? It takes six months to a year of extra dev time to accomplish this on PS3.....unless you have enough manpower for 2 separate console dev teams at the beginning of production ;)

  • Caspar_Esq. #12 3 years ago

    So essentially the PS3 version looks better but runs worse and has a lot less enemies. Gameplay>graphics but those lighting effects do look nice

  • Buran #13 3 years ago

    @Caspar_Esq. :

    No, essentially the PS3 version has higher resolution, better textures, better light and shadows and runs much smoothly, plus the online and extra contents. On the other hand, the 360 version has more polygon count and a bigger number of enemies in play, that sometimes compromises seriously the gameplay because framerrate drops.

  • Mortified_Penguin #14 3 years ago

    "the hardware itself has half the amount of in-built Raster Operation units (ROPS) up against its Xenos counterpart"

    I haven't heard this anywhere before. I thought both the RSX and Xenos had 8 ROPS? Though the Xenos has the advantage because Anti-Aliasing doesn't eat into the available fillrate (because AA is processed on the eDRAM chip).

    I was pleased to see the shaders explained as a lot of people assume that because the Xenos has unified shaders it has more shader power, but that isn't true (the RSX pixel shaders can do more operations per clock).
    Edited by Mortified_Penguin at 24/10/09 @ 12:02

  • JonFE #15 3 years ago

    @notmyrealname:
    "It stems from mathematic, a latin word which is already plural, you guys are making a double plural.. that's so .. wrong?"

    Actually the term "mathematics" stems from a Greek word (the Latin one is *borrowed* from ours). Hit the links for more information: link 1, link 2. The original Greek word "mathematica" is already in plural as you say though...

    /pedantic mode off

  • photoboy #16 3 years ago

    Fantastic head to head, it's fascinating to see what they've added/removed between the versions. I'd really like to buy Sigma 2, but I need to afford a PS3 first...

  • Retroid #17 3 years ago

    Surprisingly few fanboy posts so far (although there's always one....).

    Interesting article.

  • Vitor #18 3 years ago

    An Extra's reference as an ending line? Brilliant...

    Also, love these articles even though I barely understand half of what's being talked about

  • monkeywithnoeyes #19 3 years ago

    it seems abit odd comparing games with over a years development time apart. I would expect Sigma 2 to come off better...just as i would expect NG3 to come off better than that.

    What is evident from this article is that even now...3yrs down the line since the ps3 kits were in their hands, and the benefit of focusing on just one platform..they STILL had to make compromises for the ps3 version.

  • Retroid #20 3 years ago

    donnie080208: "It seems unfair to compare the 2 versions when the ps3 code has clearly had more dev time spent on it"

    Bollocks.

    If that were true almost all comparisons would be "unfair" because, in general, most multiplatform game releases have had more time / effort spent on one platform or another. Just take a look at Bayonetta.

  • EvilBob_leeds #21 3 years ago

    Really good article!

    @MortifiedPenguin

    Yeah I thought that too. I'm pretty sure both have 8 ROPs, but using AA gives the RSXs fillrate a bit of a spanking, since the ROP has to go and get two Z samples for each pixel drawn.
    Edited by EvilBob_leeds at 24/10/09 @ 13:14

  • lolife.se #22 3 years ago

    I guess this is exactly what they meant by Microsofts generous sponsoring of XBOX360 exclusives financing the development of PS3 games. :-)

  • miiiguel #23 3 years ago

    "Surprisingly few fanboy posts so far "

    Why are you acting surprised? PS3 game has been praised, otherwise we would have another public display of fanboy finesse.

  • Keivz #24 3 years ago

    "Ninja Gaiden 2's extremely heavy use of vertex shaders means that there are less available pixel shaders to hand(sic) in the unified setup (another reason perhaps why the game is sub-HD on 360)." While RSX might not be as flexible as Xenos in overall structure, the reserved pixel shaders have been put to good use by Team Ninja.

    Does this line not make sense to anyone else? In my mind, having for example 48 unified shaders will always be better than 24 pixel and 24 vertex shaders (or 32 & 8, or whatever the PS3 uses) due to flexibility alone.

  • Bander #25 3 years ago

    Kudos for the article concluding with the ultimate truth - it all comes down to which version has the best Ayane.

    NG2 - looks a little far-eastern (her eyes are similar to those of the half-Filipino actress who played Ayane in the movie), with slightly chubby facial features in line with a girl of 14/whatever.

    NGS2 - goes back to the anime look of the DoA games, which is closer to how she's supposed to look when she's older. It is prettier, but somewhat offset by that horrible outfit.

    The remodeling is a waste of time when every female DoA/NG character still has the skin of a plastic mannequin and shares the same physique though. Team Ninja are 'fixing' the wrong things!

    NGS2 wins because Ayane is playable. Patch her into the 360's NG2 and all will be equal. Or make DoA Code Cronus, which we've only been waiting 5 years for...

  • EvilBob_leeds #26 3 years ago

    @Keviz

    No, because the dedicated pixel shader pipes on the PS3 work at 27 flops per cycle each, whereas the unified pipes on the 360 all run at 10. I think... :)

  • estarriol #27 3 years ago

    "and what is it with UK people saying 'MATHS'?"

    It's not just "UK people" (which is, since you seem to be a language pedant, a very strange thing to say, would you say "USA people" or does your criticism of strange grammar only apply to others?). It's everyone except Americans.

    "It stems from mathematic, a latin word which is already plural, you guys are making a double plural.. that's so .. wrong?"

    No, it stems from the original greek via the Latin Mathematica, a plural which was absorbed into the English language as a plural, "Mathematics". There's no such thing in the English language as "Mathematic", it's always a plural noun.

    Now, when a plural is contracted in English, it's contracted as a plural. Spectacles -> Specs, Short Trousers -> Shorts, etc. Hence Mathematics -> Maths.

    Not "Math". Now that is a strange way to contract a plural noun.

    To be on-topic for a moment, Ayane PS3 yum!

  • Collymilad #28 3 years ago

    ""and what is it with UK people saying 'MATHS'?"

    It's not just "UK people" (which is, since you seem to be a language pedant, a very strange thing to say, would you say "USA people" or does your criticism of strange grammar only apply to others?). It's everyone except Americans."

    Indeed. One thing to say to Americans regarding English: We "invented" it, it's OUR language. So we are right about any dispute by default.

    Good day.

    Also, good article :D

  • dsmx #29 3 years ago

    Essentially while have unified shaders is generally a good thing, there is a trade off. The trade off is that each pipeline isn't as good as a dedicated pipeline. So what you gain in flexibility you lose in outright ability on specific tasks.In this case because the devs don't have unifed shaders when they made the game they had some shaders left over which they used to enhance some areas over the xbox 360 version.

    It's also why PS3 exclusives can look so good if you put the effort in, uncharted 2 springs to mind.

  • Badassbab #30 3 years ago

    @Semitope- Thought I'd find you here.

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bayonetta-demo-showdown-blog-entry/comments?comment_start=50
    ]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digita...[/link]

    See message 76. I guess I don't need to prove it any longer.

  • peak_performance #31 3 years ago

    Great face-off, one of the most interesting DF articles so far with all differences being highlighted and explained.

  • freakzilla #32 3 years ago

    There are clearly more breasts in NGS2. PS3 wins.

    Anyway, as a PS3 owner Tecmo have earned my respect, I will buy NGS2 sometime in the future.

  • El-Dev #33 3 years ago

    Was tempted to pick the SE of this up in HMV on Thursday night but I'll wait until January and hopefuly get it a bit cheaper. The demo was impressive and it certainly looks good, I thought the first Sigma looked a little cheap but this is a major improvement.

  • patchbox360 #34 3 years ago

    uncharted 2 is out now so there is no need to compare the performance of a ps3 with a xbox360

    ps3 vs pc
    360 vs wii
    ds vs psp

  • intpleeus #35 3 years ago

    Although Tecmo should be applauded for delivering a good Playstation 3 rendition, does anyone believe the results would have been so pleasing if it was released simultaneously with the Xbox 360 version?

    Sony made a console that has great potential, but unfortunately they also made it extremely difficult to tap. Only the best developers in the world (e.g. Naughty Dog), when left to work on the Playstation 3 exclusively, can deliver significantly superior results to the Xbox 360.
    Edited by intpleeus at 24/10/09 @ 16:33

  • napoleon_ist #36 3 years ago

    "The most obvious thing to note is that the Xbox 360 game is capable of throwing far more enemies at you, though there can be a performance penalty."

    yes and... the Xbox 360 game enemies don't have SHADOWS, the PS3 game enemies do have. (check the 1st screen comparison)

  • GamesConnoisseur #37 3 years ago

    ^^
    PC will beats PS3 almost every time if these two should be considered apart!!

    Good article which illustrated that proper dev time and manpower WILL result in better 'port' of another consoles game, I have both and X360 NG2 still plays more frantic and tougher due to increased enemies and gores. But PS3 version is the more complete with far better content and visually nice.

    Point is made that NGS2 still come with compromises, but nonetheless the game that PS3 owner can enjoys. As a multi platform owner, I was actually torn between the two distinct versions, and the article touched on the point of having both may be a better way.

  • Retroid #38 3 years ago

    The matter of extra dev time is a bit moot as I'm sure *any* dev team out there would tell you they would've loved extra time on a game before it goes gold :)

  • Badassbab #39 3 years ago

    Semitope- I said inferior not poor. And I'm a bit suprised DF didn't go to Beyond 3D for more technical info as they sometimes do. That's where you will find a tech analysis of the framrate and screen tearing http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php... post 588

    But overall the PS3 version is the better one graphically and gameplay wise (unless you're a hardcore NG fan who require it be unforgivingly hard).

    And Patchbox 360- You're a fanboy so your opinion matters nought.

  • TRUTH #40 3 years ago

    Hang on - the 360 version was released over 2yrs ago; yet the PS3 version has just been released this month - and yet they still have to cut & trim & tuck in places!!!!...Come on Team Ninja!
    Edited by TRUTH at 24/10/09 @ 17:47

  • davisorle #41 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Trejser #42 3 years ago

    TRUTH :

    What?

    Ninja Gaiden 2 - Release Date: 6/3/2008

    Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 - Release Date: 9/29/2009

  • Loghorn #43 3 years ago

    @ intpleeus:

    Although Tecmo should be applauded for delivering a good Playstation 3 rendition, does anyone believe the results would have been so pleasing if it was released simultaneously with the Xbox 360 version?

    Sony made a console that has great potential, but unfortunately they also made it extremely difficult to tap. Only the best developers in the world (e.g. Naughty Dog), when left to work on the Playstation 3 exclusively, can deliver significantly superior results to the Xbox 360.

    Totally agree. It's only because of extra development time, money, & extra content that the PS3 version succeeded over the 360 version. The 360 is more capable & can easily push out games in 720p in less development time & money (as well as having a better GPU), as we have seen tons of games on that system that have proved that (heck, there are more multiplats in Native 720p on the 360 than PS3), especially when the 360 is so much easier to develop for & costs less to make games for than PS3.
    Edited by Loghorn at 24/10/09 @ 18:28

  • waddlemagic #44 3 years ago

    I, and the voices in my head, agree wholeheartedly with donnie, the only person on here who can see through EG's agenda.

    Don't let the bastards grind you down, big man.



    Edited by waddlemagic at 24/10/09 @ 18:11

  • Quixz #45 3 years ago

    Played it last year enjoyed it DON'T CARE :)

  • Calgon #46 3 years ago

    *Sigh* 2 things....

    1) Assets and content already complete before they even started the PS3 version... they had far more time to optimise for the PS3 version and its still doesnt beat the 360 version convincingly.

    2) Semitope doesnt have a clue about the RSX... its well known that the RSX has a G70 core with half the number of ROPs(8 ROPs). Also texture fetch is often overlooked by people beleiving RSX will have an advantage in Vertex heavy games, it should be noted due to the nature of the USA Xenos is capable of doing far more vertex processing than RSX has a hope of doing(but then there would be less ALUs for pixels) same goes for particle performance.

    The best comparison so far to describe the differences most clearly with just the maths(theres no arguing with those calculations its how theyve always been done and the specs are correct) is here:

    http://www.pcvsconsole.com/comparisons/x...

    "but that isn't true (the RSX pixel shaders can do more operations per clock). "

    Not sure where you get that from. RSX has Vector4 shader ops Xenos has Vector5(can do more with that at 32bit) alot of peoples calculations are off because they've failed to look deeply enough.
    Edited by Calgon at 24/10/09 @ 18:32

  • Loghorn #47 3 years ago

    @Semitope:

    Less likely to make it as a HD console? Huh? How many times have we've seen that the 360 versions of games have outdone the PS3? How many times have we seen games in Native 720p on the 360? A lot. It's happened for 3 years now. It's not because they're biased. If you were to have a 720p or a 1080p HDTV, have both systems & have 2 HDMI cables hooked up onto that same HDTV (1 HDMI cable for 360 & one for PS3), & have a side by side comparison by having a side by side screen option (you can do that on a HDTV), you'll very much be able to tell the difference.

    Sorry if the truth blinds you.
    Edited by Loghorn at 24/10/09 @ 18:35

  • hahayou #48 3 years ago

    fewer available pixel shaders

  • Loghorn #49 3 years ago

    @Semitope:

    You can already see that MS took off their HD requirement (can speculate on why).

    First of all, that whole "HD requirement" was all baloney, as there was never really a HD requirement to even begin with & that there were games already in Sub-HD to begin with. If there was, all games like Star Ocean 4, Call Of Duty, & Halo 3 would all be in Native 720p. It's up to the devs how they want their games to be.

    Second, even if games were to be developed first on PS3, they'll still come out to be running & looking better on 360, as there are some games that have proved that. Why in the blue hell would 3rd party developers want to waste most of their development time (& money), just to try to make the PS3 versions of games on par with 360 versions when the PS3 versions of games doesn't even happen to sell as well as 360 versions of games do, especially when PS3 is still in last place. Sure, they can have their games in Native 720p on the PS3, but it would take more development time & money to even accomplish that.

    Third, the PS3 isn't exactly more powerful than the 360. It's more or less the same as the 360, but it's not more powerful than the 360.

    Playstation 3 Vs X-Box 360.
    Edited by Loghorn at 24/10/09 @ 19:20

  • Calgon #50 3 years ago

    @semitope LOL! I love your arguements they are always so easily defeatable and poorly thought out... between Ninja Gaiden in 2004 Team Ninja have done:

    Dead or Alive Ultimate (2004)
    Ninja Gaiden Black (2005)
    Dead or Alive 4 (2005)
    Dead or Alive Xtreme 2 (2006)
    Ninja Gaiden Sigma (2007)
    Ninja Gaiden Dragon Sword (2008)

    How can you claim that the 360 did not have an equal year developing the same aspects of the game that were changed for the ps3 version?

    I said with the content and assets complete(which take up a large chunk of development time) they would have spent the most of their time just optimising their PS3 engine, thats true... didnt they already have a PS3 engine with Ninja Gaiden Sigma? So its not like they started from scratch either. The point was only that the PS3 version *should* be more optimised it wouldnt look good for the PS3 at all if wasnt, the 360 could have been more optimised(I seem to remember Itagaki complaining to Tecmo about something which could have been about their imposed time contraints).

    RSX specs are not public knowledge, plain and simple.

    They are!(it is a stripped down G70 core, we know the number of pipelines, ROPs, ALUs and the clockspeed... go do your research and shut up pretending its some secret technology waiting to be exploited, it's getting annoying now) There is nothing wrong with those figures, I dare you to spot a mistake in there, you wont find one. As I said GPUs have been around a long long time, those calculations are how they've always been done and its the best comparison you are likely to see... now go away you petty little boy, you discredit it only because you cant accept it. This is plain to see by all who still bother to read your posts(being a completely one dimensional PS3 fanboy).
    Edited by Calgon at 24/10/09 @ 19:41

  • zztopp #51 3 years ago

    In this article the experts at DF have clearly stated what the PS3 lacks in hardware compared to the 360. So from now onwards, the PS3 fanboys should just shut it with comments such as '...the PS3 is clearly superior to the 360 in graphicS!!".

  • Les #52 3 years ago

    I'm not surprised to see the usual loons around here.

    Love it how the goons have now decided that Naughty Dog is the best developer in the world. Guess soon all of Sony's 1st party developers will be the world's elite. Anything better than admitting another plastic box might not be so bad afterall...

  • Calgon #53 3 years ago

    Les the anti-M$ mercenary calling other people loons shocker!

    edit: Can't forget the "$". ;)
    Edited by Calgon at 24/10/09 @ 19:39

  • Lukus #54 3 years ago

    So, am I right in thinking that the 360 version uses Sega's engine, whilst the PS3 version uses Tecmo's engine? Not really surprising the results are very different.

  • Calgon #55 3 years ago

    Semitope you dont even seem to understand much about the hardware you're just absolutely obsessed with PS3 being something its not!

    Call it broken NDAs but its come from the devs themselves(you'd know this if you do visit B3D alot and thats its from some of the most respected dev members on there), theres only one reason I could think of for Sony not wanting the specs of RSX public and its not something for someone like you to feel optimistic about. For example they haven't done that with CELL now have they? The only logical reason is because they know it doesnt stack up so well against Xenos.

    A decent link? PcVsconsole is as good as any(its much better than majority of sources I see people using for one thing because its normally spot on), regardless of that theres nothing wrong with that information. As I said if you knew half what you are pretending to, you'd know the calculations themselves are absolutely correct, so that means you are holding on to a hope that the specs of the RSX are still a secret? Is that what you are telling me? To mimmick your attitude "If all you have is "nothing is known/official" to support your arguement and dont see it as burying your head in the sand... then godbless you son because thats exactly what you're doing". See, isnt it fun being a condecending little so and so? Atleast I know what Im talking about though. :)

    Sony staff were quoted in PlayStation Magazine saying that the "RSX shares a lot of inner workings with NVIDIA 7800 which is based on G70 architecture. "

    All the most recent information points to:

    NVIDIA Reality Synthesizer (RSX) GPU

    * 500 MHz(limited internally by the system from 550MHz, as good as confirmed by devs on B3D)
    * 24 Pixel Shader Pipelines
    * 8 Vertex Shader Pipelines
    * 8 Pixel Rendering Pipelines (Raster Units)
    * 1.1 Billion Vertices per Second
    * 250 Million Triangles per Second
    * 12 Gigatexels per Second
    * 8 Gigasamples per Second Fill Rate (2x MSAA)
    Edited by Calgon at 24/10/09 @ 20:28

  • TRUTH #56 3 years ago

    I rather have the blood and limbs and extra onscreen characters onscreen and better framerate from the May 2008 360 version & cheaper too!...then the shinner but nipped & tucked Ps3 version released this month Nov 2009 (1year six months later) and a higher price!!!!
    Edited by TRUTH at 24/10/09 @ 22:26

  • miiiguel #57 3 years ago

    @semitope : omg, you spent whole afternoon writting about the better graphics. You don't really like video.games do you, is more this "X is better than Y" thing. Weird hobby, imo.

    I'm tired of playing video-games, the whole afternoon, I'm treating myself with a fancy diner.

    I can even make a wild guess and imagine you don't have Ninja Gaiden and probably are not interrested. Another wild one, you probably spend way more time speaking about these things than actually using them. Then again, it's a mad world.
    Edited by miiiguel at 24/10/09 @ 20:46

  • miiiguel #58 3 years ago

    It was maybe coincidence, I checked the thread at 1pm you were tlaking about the better graphics on PS3's NGS, at 8pm you were saying the exact same thing. A circle crossed my mind, it could be coincidence though. If it is not is no big deal also, I know plenty of ppl who really prefer talk about it than play them games, I find it weird but I am no judge.

    About my 7 hour session, yeah... once again, time flew by. I'll be back for some Magna Carta later, I'm so curious...

  • TRUTH #59 3 years ago

    ....(someone asked about this)by the way Borderlands on PS3 has framerate & some bad pop-up...this also happens more when playing online - not as smooth as 360 version.

  • Trejser #60 3 years ago

    About Borderlands: [link url=http://www.gametrailers.com/video/console-comparison-borderlands/58079
    ]http://www.gametrailers.com/video/consol...[/link]

    Only diffrence is SSAO.

  • TRUTH #61 3 years ago

    (Borderlands) I bought this today it looks just as sharp and plays smoothly - i am running this through a HDMI Xbox360 - my neighbor has bought this for PS3 , looks the same as 360, but did notice frame stutter and and more pop up on PS3 (have not tried online though) also has longer loading times....Get Demon's Soul (PS3) for a hardcore rpg/adventure custom building (my fav PS3 game).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-mEVvlRfWA
    Edited by TRUTH at 24/10/09 @ 23:37

  • Dizzy #62 3 years ago

    A bit strange to compare these games. Yes they have the same name but technically they are different games.

  • BillyBrush #63 3 years ago

    I think Itagaki unwittingly made the game hard to copy (not the technical stuff)....by making it utterly savage and putting the Sigma team in a position where the dreaded Cero Z rating would have been inevitable.

    By making it less violent and tricky.....you make it...perhaps better for a wider audience...but also loose a bit of what makes the original the game it was....very interesting copy protection! & very hard to definitively choose one over the other

  • Quixz #64 3 years ago

    +1 Dizzy

  • Badassbab #65 3 years ago

    Semitope-

    What you on about edram is a benefit to the 360 not an issue. It's why so many multiplat games have MSAA on 360 and none or inferior quincux on PS3. We haven't really seen a developer go to town with the 360. It's mostly been middleware like UT engine. Also MS like to have their games out before xmas time (Halo, Forza) so there is less development time available.

  • Gay-Lord-Perry #66 3 years ago

    I have both games, Sigma 2 is clearly the winner.

    Its a pretty big improvement.

  • Machiavellian #67 3 years ago

    The question if you want to go down the fanboy route would be could Team Ninja create the same game on the PS3 on the 360. From DF article you get the picture that Team Ninja had to totally change NG2 for the PS3 but it sounds like the compromises made for the PS3 version could have easily made their way to the 360 and render the same game. Cutting the amount of enemy’s blood and appendages that stay when you cut them off could easily bring the Rez for NG2 on the 360 to 720. The better use of shaders for lighting can be made up by removing the blood like the PS3 version. From reading the article, I am finding it hard to see what advantages wer used for the PS3. The way it looks to me, Team Ninja just remove stuff from the 360 version in order to get the game to work on the PS3 and this allowed them to add some additional touches. The way I see it, the changes could easily be applied to the 360 version and you have the same game on both systems
    Edited by Machiavellian at 25/10/09 @ 03:55

  • Calgon #68 3 years ago

    semitope bullshit devs on the same site you reckon you are an expert on have said the exact same thing Ive been telling you, difference between me and you... you've cherrypicked OLDER posts from posters who arent even well respected on there(doubt they are even devs). You talk about making assumptions? How about making assumptions without even understanding like YOU are doing?(If I was as petty as you I'd be holding on to Xenon being as strong as CELL in real world performance for example) I've shown you to be an ill-informed PS3 fanboy on numerous occasions now, stop pretending you are the resident tech expert because you aren't and everyone knows this.

    You are a bullshitter, you dont even understand the technology you just look for any quotes you can use from any source you can find and have the hypocrisy to critisise my sources? You're a joke!

    edit:

    Ok just to clear the "RSX specs arent known" arguement up, I aready posted:

    Sony staff were quoted in PlayStation Magazine saying that the "RSX shares a lot of inner workings with NVIDIA 7800 which is based on the G70 architecture. "

    Some posters on B3D have been refering to RSX as G71 but either way both well known right? From that it was assumed the number of pipelines, ROPs and clockspeed ect(there maybe be minor differences in what chip logic is there, but they wont affect those calculations in any way). Ontop of that combined with the Specs that Sony themselves released the figures that 99% of every full PS3 spec list and comparison done are using(aside from a little confusion on the clockspeed), they are the only ones that make sense, theres no point in arguing with them.
    Edited by Calgon at 26/10/09 @ 19:11

  • Machiavellian #69 3 years ago

    If you ask me semitope is probably Apology (something like that). Both had a knack for cherrypicking pieces of information to augment their arguments but when you go back to the source you find out they left out all the real meat. Also its very clear that semitope has no ideal what he is talking. What the heck is he champion the RSX when everyone already knows the limitations of the hardware? Its one of the main reasons, early games ran and looked like crap on the PS3. Developers were coding to it like they do for the 360 part and it wasn't even close to returning the same results.

  • intpleeus #70 3 years ago

    Les said: "Love it how the goons have now decided that Naughty Dog is the best developer in the world. Guess soon all of Sony's 1st party developers will be the world's elite."

    Naughty Dog are one of the best developers in the world, both in terms of technical mastery and game design; they have an extraordinary track record. Not only have Naughty Dog's games usually excelled technically, but almost every release has received critical acclaim and performed well at retail. So far as I am aware, these are all generally accepted facts within the videogame development community.

    We are not going to see many Playstation 3 games that better their Xbox 360 counterparts. It is not economically wise to invest the resources necessary to tap the Playstation 3's potential for all but a handful of developers working on its exclusives. For all intents and purposes, Sigma 2 was developed as though it were an exclusive, and in a sense it was an exclusive. Unfortunately, the vast majority of multi-platform releases cannot afford this kind of additional development time, and I am quite sure that Playstation 3 owners would also be upset about having to wait.

  • Machiavellian #71 3 years ago

    @semitope
    Can you tell me what is it about the PS3 port that cannot be achieved on the 360. What I am trying to say is that Team Ninja cannot make the 360 version on the PS3 but they could easily make the PS3 version on the 360. There is nothing that’s on the PS3 port that could not be achieved on the 360. What I find interesting is that the 360 appears to be the more flexible of the two consoles.

    Both consoles have there problems graphically but the strength of the PS3 is not in the RSX and you have Killzone2 and Uncharted1/2 as evidence. If the Uncharted devs is to go by, they spent 3 years alone on the engine for their game. 3rd party developers do not have that kind of time to spend on the engine alone for one platform.

    3rd party developers will be able to harness the power of the PS3 but it will depend on Sony and how hard they work to provide the resources needed to properly code to the PS3. If not, there probably is no incentive for a developer to go that extra 30% effort only to end up costing double that in time.

  • Les #72 3 years ago

    The good thing about threads like this is that the fanboys inevitably tend to show their true colours, no matter how well they try to hide them. Excellent for beefing up the ignore list. :)

  • lagoonalight #73 3 years ago

    IDcare what anybody says. Look at the massive amounts of detail and bump added to the PS3 version and that is enough to clearly put the foot down. You 360 mongers can whine all you want. There is a clear bias in this article otherwise we would be seeing a lot more pics of the the environments in light in the article itself. Instead it focuses mainly on enemies. The 360 clearly has some WONKY lighting and is sub HD. That used to be enough to demonize ANY PS3 port why all the sudden is the 360 version almost okay for this.

    And seriously you people (you know who you are) ******* GIVE IT UP! YOU HAVE NO IDEA what went into either engine stop pretending YOU KNOW what could or could not be done on EITHER ******* VERSION! GOD**** FANBOYS HARDCORE!!!!!!!!!! The detail is CLEARLY IN FAVOR of the PS3 version. YOU HAVE NO CLUE as to what could or could not have been done on the 360. THAT IS A LOT less resolution and blood and limbs do not make up for it and the extreme amounts of smooth textures that we are seeing. GOOD GOD some of you just cannot handle the fact that the PS3 is king when it comes to max graphical ability. And this game is NOT even in Uncharted 2's league. Who cares? But please stop pretending we all can blatantly see your bias nine miles away.

    Edited by lagoonalight at 25/10/09 @ 09:25

  • Geordiemp #74 3 years ago

    Just skip read it, how if Ps3 is bandwidth limited has it got better resolution ? Funny but any Ps3 graphics discussion which does not mention heavy use of SPE's means its hardly optimised for Ps3 either . they must have used SPE's a little to improve things maybe, but no mention on EG which is xbox focussed.

    Its they way eurogamer writes it, clearly talking up again the 10 MB edram.

    Both consoles have their advantages. Xbox has its extra 10 MB edram on chip, Ps3 has its SPE's for graphic benefits. Clearly software for both is optimsed and good when written for a consoles strengths....But as usual EG writes from one perspective....

    I would have liked to hav elearnt how Team Ninja was learning from masters like naught dog on how to program for Ps3 arcictecture and offload graphics to SPEs and how much they did, but all we got was the usual fanboy drivel of comparing GPUs. Yawn.
    Edited by Geordiemp at 25/10/09 @ 09:30

  • Widge #75 3 years ago

    Machiavellian, your argument works both ways surely? You're saying by cutting enemies and limbs etc out of the 360 version you could up the game to the graphical standard of the PS3 version, so by that logic if you added enemies and general carnage remnants to the PS3 you'd have to ditch the graphical enhancements but would end up with the same game on the 360.

  • Les #76 3 years ago

    "Machiavellian, your argument works both ways surely?"

    In the real word, yes. In the minds of fanboys? Of course not... ;)

    /edit: spelling
    Edited by Les at 25/10/09 @ 12:55

  • Retroid #77 3 years ago

    It's six of one and half a dozen of the other, much like the console hardware differences themselves.

  • HokutoNoKen #78 3 years ago

    Sigma 1 was released before Gaiden 2.

    Sigma 2 uses the same engine as Sigma 1 (which was develped on PS3) but the engine has improved as we can see if we compare Sigma 2 and Sigma 1.

    Sigma 1 has good lightning, self shadowing, textures, it runs at 1280x720 resoultion etc. but when Tecmo was working on Gaiden 2 they realised that they where unable to get the Xbox 360 version to run with the same graphic fidelity as Sigma 1.

    To compensate for this they decided to add more characters on the screen and introduce allot of blood and flying body parts beacuse if we where to remove all the blood and flying bodyparts, Gaiden 2 would look even more drab then already does!

    But lets be honest. Does Sigma 2 look good at all? No it does not. It seems that the game doesn't really uses the PS3 hardware if you compare it to other games such as Uncharted 1-2, Killzone 2, Motorstorm PR, heck even Heavenly Sword looks better which is one of the earlier games on PS3. HS runs att 1280x720 (4xAA), uses AF, HDR, physics, awesome textures and manages to render something like 2000 characters on screen.

    If they wanted Sigma 2 to have more charactes on screen they could haved used the SPU:s to handle that but lookin at Sigma 2 not much seems to indicate that SPU:s are fully used at all.

    By the way here are some more pictures taken by MazingerDude: [link url=http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17761655&postcou
    ]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php...[/link]
    nt=651

    / Ken
    Edited by HokutoNoKen at 25/10/09 @ 12:31

  • Geordiemp #79 3 years ago

    Donnie the fanboy, most people want good games, so get a job and buy both systems. You would like UC2 and MGS4.

    Ps3 has better first party stuff that use SPE's and more of the blu ray storage and nice animations, Xbox is better for multiplats that are programmed on PC and has nice system link.

    If you only have an xbox, you can look at UC2 and dream all you want, nothing will ever look or move with animations like it on Xbox. PS3 owners, sucks that most games dont do COOP or LAN properly. Sony wake up
    Edited by Geordiemp at 25/10/09 @ 13:48

  • intpleeus #80 3 years ago

    Semitope said : "So do you suspect that devs will get better with multiplatform games on the ps3 over time or do you think (despite the obvious trend) that ps3 multiplatform games will remain mostly inferior to the original version?"

    I think Playstation 3 versions of multi-platform games will improve relative to their Xbox 360 cousins, but I don't think we'll see a significant change from the status quo. If the Playstation 3 could do everything than the Xbox 360 can do but better, then I would expect greater parity, or even better releases on the Playstation 3, but according to everything I have read, the relative strengths of each console are mismatched. A fundamental redesign of the game engine is often required to take advantage of the Playstation 3's unique attributes, and I do not see that ever becoming an attractive prospect for developers -- especially while the Playstation 3 languishes in third place.
    Edited by intpleeus at 25/10/09 @ 13:49

  • tnt_2008smum #81 3 years ago

    @semitope
    Wow you are fast becoming king of the Sony fantards! Maybe we should get you a little gold crown that you can wear on top of your hollow wooden head!

  • zztopp #82 3 years ago

    @HokutoNoKen

    Heavenly Sword also runs at something like 20-25fps. Plus the game is a dog.

  • Loghorn #83 3 years ago

    Multiplats have it hard but they will be equal soon enough. Whether they surpass the xbox versions might be entirely up to the storage medium.

    You can keep hoping all you want, but with the 360 having a slightly better GPU & more RAM, etc., the PS3 will never surpass the 360 in multiplats unless developers put all their development time & money onto the PS3 versions.

  • Diomedes #84 3 years ago

    Uh ,just to clarify some points.

    The RSX is 550mhz ,not 500mhz.The data given by Nvidia themselves about SOPS (shader operation per second) performance only makes sense with the chip being 550 mhz.Its in the benchmarks ,it doesnt matter what B3d speculated some 3 years ago.

    The Xenos GPU is more modern an versatile ,but not more powerful.If games use the Edram then its difficult to port 1:1 on the PS3 thats true.But ,if you calculate the absolute power of both chips the RSX makes some 100 MSOPS and the Xenos 96.So they are about the same but the RSX has a slight edge.Thing is ,the Xenos is more versatile and can come up with better performance with worse code.But if you code specifically for the PS3 you can come up with better results and exclusive games shows this.

    The pipelines ....Xenos has 48 and RSX has some 32(24+8 if I remember well).But the RSX pipelines can do nearly double the operations per clock ....again the only way to calculate maximum performance is to multiply clock speed for number of pipelines and that for the amount of operations per clok of each pipeline.And numbers dont lie and have been confirmed by Nvidia and Ati...RSX maximum theoretical peak power is 100 MSOPS and Xenos 96.Its in the released benchmarks ,I wont discuss this any further.

    As for Tecmo ,and NGS 1 and 2 ,I remember hearing from them that this game uses the Cell to do the graphics.At least I am 100% sure NGS1 used the Cell to do the graphics and used very few of the RSX.And thats something a lot of people dont give credit to the PS3 arquitechture.The Cell SPUS can do extremely well floating point operations ....for example graphics,video etc.In fact ,the original plan was to have just a Cell for graphics.The DF article is very interesting and well written but if Tecmo used the SPUS to render the graphics this comparision is just educated guesses.

    As for multiplattform titles.....they tend to adapt for the minimum.They cant use extended use of streaming because the DVD cant do that like the BD ,they cant assign some Gb of HDD space for texture cache because half the 360 users dont have HDD ,they cant use the RSX-Cell combo to the full power because the 360 work would be a nightmare if you had to transfer the SPU code,they cant use some 50Gb of data for the assets because the 360 adn PC version would have to come in 6 Dvds ...and so on.So with the compromised concept and both versions like for like the 360 sometimes has a slight advantage due to the slighty better filters of the Ati card against the Nvidia one and the Edram that eases the framerate.

    These limitations ,though ,dissappear when you develop solely for the PS3.There you can use the Cell-RSX combo at full ,assign HDD space to cache textures ,stream constantly from the BD data to the HDD without penalty for the CPU ,use the massive storage capacity of the BD for whatever you like ......and you can see that.Games as Killzone 2 ,Infamous ,Uncharted 2 ,God of War 3 ,Heavy Rain ,Gran Turismo 5 ,Ratchet and Clank ,MAG ....those are really superior to anything the multiplatforms are offering in the technical aspect.None of them uses installations ,some of them are even 1080p games.Look at GT 5 compared to FM3 ,twice the amount of cars on screen ,1080p of resolution ,twice the cars online,better lighting and far superior polygon count ....

    Probably this situation will continue in the future.Multiplattform titles will be planned and engineered around DVD and HDD-less assumptions and using DirectX libraries for the PC and 360 versions and then ported to the PS3 the better they can but without exclusive code for that one.Its a testament to the PS3 power that even under these circumstances games are in most cases like for like and the performance hit when it happens cant be seen by average gamers eyes.Exclusive games will improve more over time on the PS3.So 360 fans have their little victory (some games run a 5% better on their machine ,hurrah!) but that doesnt mean the PS3 isnt a better machine overall.

  • TRUTH #85 3 years ago

    Killzone 2 ,Infamous, Rachet & Clank - Don't kid yourself, there good but nothing above any other game out there in graphics!...Killzone was verrrrrrrrrry liner, the ai was nothing compared to Halo's, KZ was simply go down corridor then into a box room; then into another corridor and into another boxed room, hardly any variety in enemies, the vehicles sucked, also respawn of characters to keep the illusion of more onscreen when hardly more then 9 at most onscreen at once, the explosions sucked, the game keeps repeating untill you reacj an area that let's of an event - just check the 1st level of the exploding bridge - it won't happen untill you reacj a certain point (it does this alot in the game), the physics are nothing already seen and fairly average with interaction.

    CoD 4 (not a big fan of this myself) looked as good if not better in places - esp the sniper section then KZ - where does KZ exceed????
    Edited by TRUTH at 25/10/09 @ 22:31

  • SeesThroughAll #86 3 years ago

    @Diomedes:

    Games as Killzone 2 ,Infamous ,Uncharted 2 ,God of War 3 ,Heavy Rain ,Gran Turismo 5 ,Ratchet and Clank ,MAG ....those are really superior to anything the multiplatforms are offering in the technical aspect.None of them uses installations
    [...]
    Its a testament to the PS3 power that even under these circumstances games are in most cases like for like and the performance hit when it happens cant be seen by average gamers eyes.Exclusive games will improve more over time on the PS3.So 360 fans have their little victory (some games run a 5% better on their machine ,hurrah!)

    I agree with part of what you say, but we don't know for a fact whether or not GT5 and GOW3 install to the HDD. And I'm pretty sure Heavy Rain will probably have a mandatory installation. Graphics wise, for most examples you gave, there are equally good-looking exclusive games on the 360. And this is coming from a PS3 fanboy, btw.

  • Loghorn #87 3 years ago

    @Semitope:

    Um, wrong. The 360 GPU is superior and has more RAM available for textures, plus the PS3 uses QAA instead of FSAA. This is why multiplats look slightly better on the 360. Insignificant? Give me a break. I'm not being optimistic, since the PS3 is a much harder system to develop games on than the 360 & that it needs more time & money just to get the PS3 versions of games on par with the 360 versions. Don't try putting words in my mouth.

    Seriously, just stop. You're just only making yourself look more foolish every time that you post. Not just from me, but by everyone else here.

  • Diomedes #88 3 years ago

    @Truth

    We arent speaking IA here ,but Killzone 2 trounces graphically any 360 game.Resolution ,polygon count ,textures ,special effects ,post-proccessing,32 players online with no graphic hit whatsoever.....we can debate all we want if some other game has better IA or is less linear.That could be said with Gears of War and Resistence 1 ,the later having more enemies on screen ,better IA ,way bigger levels and Gears being more in closed spaces etc ....but Gears 1 still looked better.Some games may have some thing over Killzone 2 ,and you can like some games as COD4 more you are in your perfect right.But graphically speaking these games cant touch KZ2.

    @seesthroughall

    Its true it remains to be seen whether GOW3,Heavy Rain and Gt5 dont use installs.But I would bet on it.Beware,some games as Uncharted 2 ,even Infamous are using the HDD to constantly stream data from the BD.....this use of the HDD I can see the other games using (specially since Sony teams share technology)....thats something very different to the mandatory installs of some third party games that have been coded according to the DVD geography(faster in the outer rings and way slower in the inner rings,but to launch games you code in the outer rings and if you dont install in the PS3 you would have long waits until starting a game).

    @Loghorn.The 360 Ram advantage over the PS3 has become smaller and smaller with each firmware update of the PS3.At first the PS3 OS weighted some 96Mb of ram against the 360 32,now withe the later firmwares the OS footprint is around 44-45mb so nearly on par with the 360(that is still 32).The difference now is very small,and you are forgetting the PS3 can constantly stream data from the BD....when you have to design one level having access to way more memory is a better tradeoff that having 12mb more for onscreen graphics at the same time well thats my take on it and games as Kz2,Ratchet 2 and Uncharted 2 prove this.The Xenos has better filters that the RSX thats true ,and usually is appliable to any Ati card vs its Nvidia counterpart....but the difference is not something very palpable...I would say 80% of even core gamers couldnt tell the difference to start with.Again,this is the only victory the 360 has over the PS3 technically ....its filters and AA are slighty better(thanks also to the Edram) but to each their own.

  • Badassbab #89 3 years ago

    HokutoNoKen 101

    So what your saying is NGS1 looks better than NG2? I think your making stories up. For example you say Temco decided to add blood, flying limbs and more enemies on NG2 cause it couldn't handle the graphical fidelity of NGS1? You insult my intelligence if you expect me to believe that fanboy.
    Edited by Badassbab at 26/10/09 @ 00:15

  • Dizzy #90 3 years ago

    IA Diomedes????/

    Interesting Aliasing?

  • Bander #91 3 years ago

    Machiavellian raises a good point about NGS2's visuals being something that the 360 could probably do if Team Ninja tried. Without the extra limbs, blood, enemies and higher polygon counts of the 360 game, a bunch of the unified shaders would be freed from vertex shading and could be put towards pixel shading instead. However, Team Ninja under Itagaki didn't like to work this way. If you look at DoA 4, there's very few texture shading effects but much higher polygon counts compared to other one-on-one fighting games on the 360.

    As for resolution, tiling takes less of a performance hit if fewer textured polygons overlap the edges of the tiles, as those polygons have to have their corresponding textures transfered over to the GPU twice (more if it's a very big poly and more than 2 tiles are used). Cutting out the blood would reduce the overlapping.

  • axtmoerder #92 3 years ago

    sigma 2 has no problems rendering more than 4-5 enemies

    you can run through the levels and hording enemies,12 is the maximum though

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA7Runk_lSc
    ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA7Runk_lSc
    [/link]

    if they wanted to they would throw 10 enemies at you in every encounter like in the 360 version

  • intpleeus #93 3 years ago

    Semitope said: "Multiplats have it hard but they will be equal soon enough. Whether they surpass the xbox versions might be entirely up to the storage medium."

    Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it, because there isn't a big enough carrot. The PS3 just doesn't enjoy the market lead of its predecessor, and so its multi-platform releases will continue to suffer. That said, I think the PS3 will continue to outshine the 360 with its exclusive titles, albeit marginally.

  • intpleeus #94 3 years ago

    Loghorn,

    It depends on what standards "superior graphics" are judged by. In a contest of potential, the PS3 defeats the 360. But we do not ordinarily judge something by potential alone. For example, a football player with great potential but a bad attitude is often worse than a player with lesser potential but a good attitude. Although the former might produce an incredible performance on occassion, the latter could be more consistent and better overall. In this respect, the 360 would seem to defeat the PS3. But then what about the 360's injury record? Should we also take into account the PS3's large transfer fee? It might seem as though these things have nothing to do with graphics, but is the 360's notorious failure rate the price we pay for Microsoft pushing graphical performance too much? Is the extra price of the PS3 really worth the marginal graphical benefits it can potentially deliver?

    On balance, I would say the 360 edges it, but it is "a close run thing."
    Edited by intpleeus at 26/10/09 @ 06:28

  • Geordiemp #95 3 years ago

    At the end of the day, new engines will take time to diffuse out to third party developers, who have old engines or use UEIII.

    For me, the ony xbox game that stands in the same room as sony forst party is assasins creed which runs nice on Xbox, hopefully this will improve with time.

    Xbox can look forward to Cryengine and the Rage (?), Ps3 has those plus whatever scraps Sony First party want to share. It will take a year or 2 before we see a step inprovement in both for multiplats. These engines have 2 x AA built into SPU's..

    Note, once you have suitable engine the 'hard to program for' arguement is no longer.....as someones done the hard work for you....Do you think some developer who could use Killzone or ND's engine or a cryengine would have an extendd development time ?

    BACK ON TOPIC, excellend find on you tube showing 10-12 enemies. Have both NGII and NGIIS, and NGIIS the enemies need more killing with sword combat with MUCH less effect of projectiles. It plays differently and was probably a design choice, the clawed ninjas really take alot of killing on NGSII, especially on mentor, and 3 of them need some serious izuna drops...
    Edited by Geordiemp at 26/10/09 @ 08:02

  • HokutoNoKen #96 3 years ago

    @Longhorn

    "Um, wrong. The 360 GPU is superior and has more RAM available for textures, plus the PS3 uses QAA instead of FSAA."

    PS3 can use more then just QAA. Here is a list from Beyond3D

    Gran Turismo 5 Prologue = 1280x1080 2xAA + HDR or 1280x720 4xAA + HDR (you can choose).
    Uncharted 1 = 1280x720 2xAA + HDR.
    Uncharted 2 = 1280x720 2xAA + HDR + vsync.
    Heavenly Sword = 1280x720 4xAA + HDR.
    Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriot = 1024x768 (2xAA, temporal) + vsync.
    Resident Evil 5 = 1280x720 QAA + vsync.
    Ninga Gaiden Sigma 2 = 1280x718 2xMSAA (Dynamic)
    NHL '09 = 1280x720 4xAA.

    and so on...

  • des #97 3 years ago

    NG2 is last true NG game...NGS2 is just an horrible abomination,horrible...good that it totally flopped in sales,so there wont be a sequel for a long time,hopefully never
    NG R.I.P

    But now a new King has risen...Bayoneta...so awesome,so flashy,so 60 fps(if you have the right console,of course)

  • HokutoNoKen #98 3 years ago

    Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 = 1280x718 2xMSAA (Dynamic).
    Ninja Gaiden 2 = 1120x585 (2xAA).

    If we where to remove the lightning in Sigma 2, drop the resolution, decrease the texture quality the game would look similar to Gaiden 2 and we would free up more hardware resources and then be able to render even more characters on the screen. But Sigma 2 doesnt have any problem rendering characters on the screen as can be seen in this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA7Runk_lSc (12 characters)

    Sigma 2 can even render two heroes + monsters on the screen at once:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhjqsN1nFfo (2 player co-op)

    We have to ask ourself why the Xbox 360 doesnt run with lightning quality, shadowing, resolution, textures that we can see on Sigma 2.

    Accourding to many people the Xbox gfx card is far superior and the machine has twice as much memory so a higher resolution, better textures, better lightning should be walk in the park then. But it seems the 360 was unable to do that so they decided to put more characters on screen and add alot of blood and flying boody parts instead beacuse if they didn't Gaiden 2 would have look like a last generation game.

    / Ken
    Edited by HokutoNoKen at 26/10/09 @ 08:50

  • Les #99 3 years ago

    "Naughty Dog are one of the best developers in the world, both in terms of technical mastery and game design; they have an extraordinary track record."

    They definitely have a well above average track record, but extraordinary? Pretty much all of their games have a metacritic rating between 85 and 90, which is no mean feat as it shows they haven't really created anything weak (except maybe Jak's racing game). But Uncharted 2 is their first game that is considered by a broad range of critics as one of the best games available at its time of release (with a rating in the high 90's).

    Don't get me wrong, I love what I’ve played of their output so far (J&D, Jak II and the first Uncharted) but I personally think it a bit strange that a lot of people discrediting their work as late as Uncharted now all of a sudden claim they’re the world’s top developer to explain how a PS3 game can look better than anything on 360.

  • muscleblade #100 3 years ago

    @HokutoNoKen

    Too bad most games look a lot better on the 360 then. This doesnt but most multiplatform titles do.


  • Machiavellian #101 3 years ago

    Machiavellian, your argument works both ways surely? You're saying by cutting enemies and limbs etc out of the 360 version you could up the game to the graphical standard of the PS3 version, so by that logic if you added enemies and general carnage remnants to the PS3 you'd have to ditch the graphical enhancements but would end up with the same game on the 360.

    True. I guess we will never know because the two games are different. It would be interesting to know how both games would have performed if they were coded the same but that probably would not have been a smart move by Team Ninja anyway.

  • Machiavellian #102 3 years ago

    @HokutoNoKen
    Have you even once considered that there are two different groups that designed two different games based on the lead designers and what they felt important. Let me ask you, do you have all of the NG games on the xbox, 360 and PS3.

    Accourding to many people the Xbox gfx card is far superior and the machine has twice as much memory so a higher resolution, better textures, better lightning should be walk in the park then. But it seems the 360 was unable to do that so they decided to put more characters on screen and add alot of blood and flying boody parts instead beacuse if they didn't Gaiden 2 would have look like a last generation game.

    This statement is pure fanboy tosh. You act as if these consoles have infinite resources that can be spread around like jelly on toast but the case is that designers make the game they want and use the resources to fit that game. There are no better textures on the PS3 game, instead they used the shaders to do stuff like bump mapping to create a better effect. The lighting is also done by using shaders. The problem you have is that you do not understand the technology being used and why one game uses shaders for one purpose and another game uses those SAME shaders for another. Do not forget that NG2 and NGS2 were designed by two different leads and I also believe by a different team as well.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 26/10/09 @ 14:32

  • HokutoNoKen #103 3 years ago

    @Machiavellian

    Have you even once considered that there are two different groups that designed two different games based on the lead designers and what they felt important. Let me ask you, do you have all of the NG games on the xbox, 360 and PS3.

    Yes of course there could be two completly different teams, or some members from NG2 team could be working in the same team as the one that made Sigma 2 and vice versa. Its probably the Ninja Gaiden team at least. Maybe we shall interpret the graphical difference between the games such as the the team that made Sigma 1 and 2 is the better one then.

    "There are no better textures on the PS3 game, instead they used the shaders to do stuff like bump mapping to create a better effect. The lighting is also done by using shaders.

    Adding bumpmaps is a way to improve the texture apperance hence the better looking texture.

    / Ken

  • Bander #104 3 years ago

    HokutoNoKen: If we where to remove the lightning in Sigma 2, drop the resolution, decrease the texture quality the game would look similar to Gaiden 2 and we would free up more hardware resources and then be able to render even more characters on the screen.
    Nope, doing those things wouldn't free up any of the vertex shaders, only pixel shaders, and you need vertex shaders to get more characters on screen, and increase the polygon counts per character to the same level as the 360 game. They're not unified like they are on the 360, so a pixel shader can't become a vertex shader if it isn't being used.

    Oh yeah, Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 still don't exceed all the effects and detail seen in Gears of War 2. They are a close match at best. Shadows may seem better, but visibility is certainly improved when the game isn't covered in patches of blackness where you can't tell friend from foe (a problem with Gears 1).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB9MmDZWA6M

  • funkateer #105 3 years ago

    Nice to see the differences.
    However I think there's once again the tendency in this DF article to jump to unfounded conclusions.

    For example, it was noted that there are more polygons shown in the cutscenes of the 360 version. I think that's not really proven. Sure, there are lot more enemies shown on screen, but looking at the screenshots I'm fairly sure there's heavy use of a technique called 'impostoring' going on (it's a trick that suggests a lot more polygons being drawn, involging rendering a model to a texture once and then copying bill-boarded instances).

    Noteworthy is that in the screenshots comparing the number of enemies, the X360 seems to lack the any lighting on these enemies. Of course I can't be sure, but it seems very likely to me that in the PS3 version, the lighted enemies are not 'impostored' so therefore these enemies count far more polygons than the unlighted bill-boarded enemies (it's the difference between 1 polygon against a full model).

    So yeah, the X360 version shows way more enemies, but the PS3 version might actually be drawing more polygons. Maybe, maybe not, who knows...

    The only way to be sure is to actually count polygons. That's of course not something DF can do, so IMHO they can also not compare polygon count, let alone jump to the conclusion that one version draws more polygons than the other. And then even mentioning the cause of that difference being some X360 hw advantages.
    DF surely isn't in the position to make claims like that.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, DF: please stick to the facts and stick to what you're good at.

  • HokutoNoKen #106 3 years ago

    @Bander

    Nope, doing those things wouldn't free up any of the vertex shaders, only pixel shaders, and you need vertex shaders to get more characters on screen, and increase the polygon counts per character to the same level as the 360 game. They're not unified like they are on the 360, so a pixel shader can't become a vertex shader if it isn't being used.

    If you where to decrease the quality of the lightning, textures or remove some shader effects, you free up resourses for the shaders and would be able to render more stuff on the screen as the shader piplines will not be stressed in the same way.

    What I am meaning is this. Example: 1 character on screen with MAX effects ( highest quality bump, specular,... and more) or 10 characters (only decent bump and no more). I think you understand what I mean.

    The SPU:s can be used if you want to off load vertex operations.

    / Ken
    Edited by HokutoNoKen at 26/10/09 @ 15:45

  • intpleeus #107 3 years ago

    Les said: "They definitely have a well above average track record, but extraordinary?"

    What do you think "extraordinary" means? It means "not ordinary" or "exceptional." If Naughty Dog have a "well above avergae track record," then Naughty Dog are, by definition, extraordinary, i.e. an exception to the norm.

  • Bander #108 3 years ago

    HokutoNoKen, if you remove shader and lighting effects, you'd free up some resources for... more shader and lighting effects. Not geometry.

    I think Itagaki is the ultimate fanboy, who deliberately made NG2 in such a way that the PS3 couldn't run it. Perhaps he knew that he'd be leaving Tecmo and his pro-Sony bosses soon?

    The remainder of Team Ninja then responded by putting a lot of time and effort into rebuilding the game so that it would look better, and certainly the extra lighting is something most people would notice before any other differences. Then proceeded to stick two fingers up at Itagaki by dressing the underage Ayane in a costume that looks like it'd fall off if she sneezed, and added the six-axis feature and Kasumi. Itagaki did make the DoA Xtreme games, but he has also said that he thinks of the characters as his children and wouldn't do anything vulgar with them (this does admittedly still make him seem like a pervy uncle).

    Now would be a very good time for an Itagaki interview if at all possible.

  • HokutoNoKen #109 3 years ago

    @Bander

    "HokutoNoKen, if you remove shader and lighting effects, you'd free up some resources for... more shader and lighting effects. Not geometry."

    The more geometry (as in more characters on screen as they are built with polygons) you have the more demanding the lightning and shader will be and vice versa.

  • Calgon #110 3 years ago

    "Uh ,just to clarify some points.

    The RSX is 550mhz ,not 500mhz.The data given by Nvidia themselves about SOPS (shader operation per second) performance only makes sense with the chip being 550 mhz.Its in the benchmarks ,it doesnt matter what B3d speculated some 3 years ago."

    No the data given predates(given before it was even released and it was "subject to change";) the reports that Sony changed this at the last minute, infact this is as good as confirmed(granted not 100percent on it either way but its hardly been dismissed as roumer as you are claiming) that its limited to 500Mhz by the system, developers on Beyond3d reported this not some random fanboys(it would be a pretty random roumer to make because it didnt make a big difference to the comparison anyway). The reason that nobody argues much on it is it's not really worth picking up on.

    Xenos still would have had the edge regardless, the raw figures assume that RSX is working at 100% effeciency when its 60% efficient at best(compared to Xenos which is allegedly 90%+ efficient when used right) and also that it will have all pixel ALUs at hand when it never will thanks to texture fetch... my earlier comparison link should demonstrate this nicely(if you like you can easily recalculate them with the information given for a 550MHz clock speed it wont make much difference).

    http://www.pcvsconsole.com/comparisons/x...

    The first comparison on the very same site used the 550Mhz specs, the outcome was still the same, Xenos does look to have the edge when you take the full workload into account(real world conditions).

    Im not sure where you got the "MSOPs" figures from because we are talking billions here not millions so they would be GSOPs or GOPs I beleive, it seems like there are quite a few figures given for this because there are different ways to calculate them. For example when MS sent their comparison to IGN it was: RSX - 74.8GOPs. Xenos - 80GOPs.

    As I said earlier RSX has vector4 shader ops, Xenos has Vector5 you get extra components with Vector5 so Im geussing the figures for shader ops per second you gave arent like for like or are the old theoretical specs which dont take into account the differences or the reduced clockspeed(I think the 50Mhz is a pretty worthless arguement considering it doesnt make much difference either way, stuff like overall efficiency, improved dynamic branching, memexport and the Edram are much more significant yet often overlooked). Either way those shader ops figures on their own werent ever nearly enough to settle the arguement(infact the only time Ive seen them used to compare GPUs is when PS3 fanboys thought RSX had an advantage in that specific area and then it suddenly became the be all end all but even then there doesnt look to be an advantage there at all in the end).

    Another thing is there are no benchmarks for RSX or Xenos as far as I know what are you talking about?(other than the earliest spec lists we were given before they were even released... benchmarks isnt a term anyone should use for them), please dont confuse the discussion with nonesense.

    One thing I notice is PS3 fanboys desperately understate the GPU advantage 360 has and by the same margin overstate the CPU advantage PS3 has, without realising that the CPU power difference simply cant be as great as they want to beleive given that UC2 already untapped the CELL and Xenon is still waiting for an engine which fully utilises VMX128 accross those 6 threads along with the XPS features(cache-locking to buffer data, shared compression formats to save footprint and bandwidth, bypass main memory) for direct Xenon-Xenos communications.

    The reason for this could be down to same reason MS are insisting devs stick to the 360 API, to make backwards compatibility a more likely possibility next gen. Sony doesnt seem as concerned with this and are willing to possibly forsake that in order to let devs get the most out of what they have here and now, a good example to set IMO, Id rather MS sit up take notice of that.
    Edited by Calgon at 26/10/09 @ 18:56

  • Les #111 3 years ago

    "What do you think "extraordinary" means? It means "not ordinary" or "exceptional." If Naughty Dog have a "well above avergae track record," then Naughty Dog are, by definition, extraordinary, i.e. an exception to the norm."

    Are we going to play word games now?! To most people, "extraordinary" tends to mean:

    - very unusual or remarkable
    - unusually great
    - (of a meeting) specially convened
    - (of an official) additional; specially employed

    (courtesy of the Oxford Dictionary)

    It's quite a stretch from "well above average" to 'remarkable' or 'unusually great'.

  • TRUTH #112 3 years ago

    The problem is when a game like the average shooter Killzone 2 or a game like the excellent Uncharted 2 (I'm on the temple section) come to PS3 fanboys simply over estimate the capabilities of PS3 and the game itself, simply, because the games are PS exclusives - The point is these games have been developed & programmed/engineered just for the for PS3, by Sony, with massive cost and development time...The 360 does not use especially developed tools/programs/software like the PS3, it uses middlesware or shareware programs/tools that have already been developed for use of cross platforms adjusted here & there for the 360 like Unreal engine for nearly if not all games on XB360 ( i can't think of one game that has been esp developed for 360 the way PS4 games have). Also the long development times for PS3 (usually 2yrs+) and cost for development is lessened on 360 by doing this - though the best is not taken from within the 360 - yet is still holds it's capabilities with PS3's, and even surpass!...Yet!!!! if Killzone 2 was a multiformat game it certainly wouldn't be shouted about like PS fans desperately continue to do...Look at the upcoming games like Assassin Creed 2, Lost Planet 2 (load the demo), Rage, Just Cause 2, R.U.S.E etc etc they just as good or better from what has been seen in looks...Also game like Assassin Creed (great looker but average game), Fight Night 4, Batman AA, Skate, Dirrt 2, GTA IV, Res 5(360 version) these games look as good or better then many exclusives - and not pacifically built on the power of one system!

    By the way GT 5 is coming in Sept 2010 - almost 5yrs+ in development!!!!
    Edited by TRUTH at 26/10/09 @ 22:44

  • Calgon #113 3 years ago

    "Of course you are not just a 360 fanboy spewing rubbish missinformation without any proper sources. pcvsconsole site again?"

    Excuse me, bwahahahah YOU are calling ME a fanboy?????

    Not even your quote(from someone who tries to suggest VMX are addon units? As in useless afterthought? Hmmm sounds *real* impartial) supports the claim of any missinformation in my post, we are all well aware of the THEORETICAL performance, we also know that there hasnt been a single mention a 360 engine in existance yet(other than the X-Engine roumer) that uses VMX128 accross 6 threads which it *can* do.

    It's simple the SPUs excell at vector maths/processing, VMX128 also excels at vector maths yet hasnt been used much on 360 development. A good explanation of what this is can be found on your favourite site B3D by "Shifty Geezer":

    "Any processing that can be mapped to several numbers and sums at the same time fits to vector processing. Obviously 3D space is one such task, with X, Y and Z data components to describe each point, and that's why Cell is good at vector work. Texture work OTOH is all about memory access, which throws up a lot of problems about latency and waiting for textures to be fetched so you can shade the triangle".

    Animation, Skinning, lighting, AI are also said to lend well to processors like the SPEs and VMX128 units.

    So since VMX128 isnt even being used much as it currently stands in 360 development they simply have to be much closer in real world performance than we were originally led to beleive IMO(unless you beleive this wouldnt make any difference when the Xbox group stated a several hundred percent increase could be acheived as of 2007-8 IIRC), also with the following information I will provide, I think you will find it is YOU trying to spread missinformation(btw MS didnt try and compare the any GFLOPs figures without the SPEs as far as I know I dont know where he got that from).

    http://www.xnagamefest.com/presentations...

    VMX Optimization: Taking it up a Level

    "The Xbox 360 VMX vector unit holds the potential to speed up floating-point calculations by several hundred percent."

    As for the XPS features I talked about, the information came again from a presentation by the members of the Xbox group themselves:

    Skip to the "CPU Data Streaming Specs" slide its rather quite interesting.

    http://www.hotchips.org/archives/hc17/3_...

    Figure 3. The combined VMX and FPU unit

    "Floating point instructions are sent to a combined VMX/FPU unit, which has available two simultaneous threads for the VMX and two for the FPU. Once again, the delayed-execution issue queue reduces load latency to two cycles. The load/store unit (LSU) might operate out-of-order with respect to the FPU, but the final results are correct."

    So its true that there are 128 VMX128 register sets per hardware thread, and also that they share the same execution unit but the VMX128 units are multi-threaded(some people initially assumed the VMX units werent hence sharing one execution unit becoming a big problem).

    "Another reference is "Xbox 360 System Architecture", by Jeff Andrews and Nick Baker of Microsoft, IEEE Micro, March-April 2006, pp. 25-37.

    From that source:
    Quote:
    "The CPU core has two-per-cycle, in-order instruction issuance. A separate vector/scalar issue queue (VIQ) decouples instruction issuance between integer and vector instructions for nondependent work. There are two symmetric multithreading (SMT), finegrained hardware threads per core."
    And:
    Quote:
    "Each core also includes the four-way SIMD VMX128 units: floating-point (FP), permute, and simple. As the name implies, the VMX128 includes 128 registers, of 128 bits each, per hardware thread to maximize throughput."

    Each core of the CPU is "really" multithreaded, including the VMX128 units. It wouldn't make much sense to do it any other way.

    I'm not sure what you think "real" multithreading is. If a single "core" had the execution units, and, more importantly, the instruction issue logic, to process two threads in parallel, then it wouldn't be one core, it would be two.    "

    [link url=http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=43495&page=6
    ]http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php...[/link]

    Also since you probably wont bother reading back I will repeat this again:

    Ok just to clear the "RSX specs arent known" arguement up, I aready posted:

    Sony staff were quoted in PlayStation Magazine saying that the "RSX shares a lot of inner workings with NVIDIA 7800 which is based on the G70 architecture. "

    Some posters on B3D have been refering to RSX as G71 but either way both well known right? From that it was assumed the number of pipelines, ROPs and clockspeed ect(there maybe be minor differences in what chip logic is there, but they wont affect those calculations in any way). Ontop of that combined with the Specs that Sony themselves released the figures that 99% of every full PS3 spec list and comparison done are using(aside from a little confusion on the clockspeed), they are the only ones that make sense, theres no point in arguing with them.

    You are in complete denial, its obvious one of us has a better understanding of the technology and the other desperate to beleive one is superior to the other when most people on the very same source they use so often, beleive them to be pretty close in terms of real world performance(certainly nothing like Sony told it).

    edit: Broken links should be fixed now and sources added.
    Edited by Calgon at 26/10/09 @ 20:58

  • TRUTH #114 3 years ago

    Isn't that an advantage that PC games come to 360 and vice versa : Metro 2033, Mech Assault, Conan Adv, S T A L K E R (yes is coming to 360) etc...all developed for both PC/360 - not PS3. This is a advantage to 360 gamers and as myself who uses a PC - but not for gaming; as it a lot of hassle, though I also can't enjoy games like SF IV, FN 4, Borderlands. Half Life 2, Grid etc on a monitor and continuous upgrades and errors as always on a PC...Compare with the simplicity of console playing and enjoyment of gaming in front of my 50" HD tv with surround sound and mates, with no errors or time to upgrade or adjust pc settings...look forward to many more PC/360 games - not coming to PS3.
    Edited by TRUTH at 26/10/09 @ 22:50

  • Calgon #115 3 years ago

    @semitope: You truely are getting desperate now, I can see you are cracking! lol :D

    First off:

    "They paid millions for it for no reason at all."

    They'd pay millions for it whether it was new or not(do you have an actual amount or are you guessing again?) because it's Nvidias chip and technology they are leasing out to other firms for PS3 production. Nice try but utterly rubbish logic yet again from you.

    So not only do Sony employees not support your desperate hope that RSX is a unique architecture(what are you going to tell us that its a custom chip now?) and not a stripped down PC part like the majority of B3D posters beleive... I've yet to see you provide a post from anyone to support YOUR side... you've got absolutely nothing. Why would Sony want to keep the full specs secret and not CELL? It's obvious they dont want direct comparisons with Xenos being made. They are the *only* figures which make sense since we know its based on G70/G71 architecture and we know the full system specs(do the maths, then STFU), do not bother commenting on matters which you clearly dont understand.

    "Nothing you've said about the vmx reveals real world performance."

    Where did I give any real world performance figures? There arent any for either system, I've made a well informed opinion you've made a whole lot of noise without getting anywhere.

    Since UC2 is maxing out CELL so to speak, they *have* to be closer than you are willing to admit in real world performance, how is this point not getting through to you? Must be those Sony earmuffs you are wearing that block out anything thats not pro PS3.

    "You want to believe its magic but vmx units are not nearly what the spus are; they arent separate processors and arent nearly as fast."

    So you are saying you beleive YOU have a greater understanding of the simularities and differences between VMX128 and the SPUs than ME? :D

    No my little deluded chum, Ive shown to have the knowlege you've only shown to have innacurate information(which I've had to correct you on and have provided the sources)... you just been making baseless conclusions without any source("oh my reading on B3D says PS3 is the Shizznit, dont ask me for any direct quotes though.... wheres your sources btw?" hypocrite), another thing is although they arent phyically seperate processors the Xbox Advanced Technology group in that very presentation were conveying to devs thats the best way to use them.

    Also they arent physically the same(which isnt what I said, I never said they are *as* fast either but since they havent had even nearly the amount of utilisation as the SPEs have they wouldnt need to be to even things out IMO) but they *do* have the same strengths and can be used for the same tasks as we've seen on the SPEs. I do beleive CELL is faster in this area and it is still stronger over, all my point is, it cant possibly as significant a margin as we were once led to beleive(like you seemingly still beleive). Overall weighing up the GPUs, CPUs and Memory architecture every developer worth their salt that isnt on Sony's payroll calls them even(the few that gave PS3 the edge ended up embaressing themselves)... you've not really even tried to put a decent arguement across which shows the PS3 is stronger... you've just dismissed all the 360s strengths with drivel.

    VMX has been in use since 2007 if you believe the devs there (talking about their work) so where is the benefit? Maybe we will see it next year...

    My word the irony in your attitude is quite overwhelming, who's making stuff up now? You are telling me you know how far they've come since that XNA conference? All that was, was an advisory talk by the xbox team from what theyd learnt by looking at the most recent examples in the dev community along with their own research(i.e this is how much room for improvement there is), it could be that there hasnt been much investment there(it was advice they dont force things on Devs like Sony try to).

    Since VMX128 hasn't had full utilisation on 360 yet, which it hasnt unless you'd like to show me an engine built from the ground up to utilise both the CPU and GPU in this way(like the PS3 has with UC2 and KZ2).... which you cant!

    "posting crap from ppl using marketing speak is stupid."

    Learn to read properly you utter moron it didnt come from a PR person, not only have I already used IBM as a source in that very post but that peice of information in particular is from an Xbox Advanced Technology Group member, it was a quote from an XNA presentation given to developers(nothing to do with the press)... Whats the point in me providing rock solid sources if you dont even bother to atleast check them out before dismissing them.

    So Semitope claims a senior Xbox Advanced Technology Group member is talking rubbish, could you be any more of a douche? It was bad enough pretending you're better informed than myself(which is ludicrous because you are clueless) but now you are just opening yourself up to all kinds of riddicule.

    If you dismiss a source before even reading it(Im questioning if you didnt just skim read my post too) you've just outed yourself to everyone as bullshitter not willing to hear anything he doesnt like... being a PS3 fanboy without half the technical knowlege of the average contributer on these articles, I think you should quit now and find something else to post about because all you've done is fail!
    Edited by Calgon at 27/10/09 @ 00:17

  • Calgon #116 3 years ago

    Semitope this is far from fun for you, you're an obsessive PS3 fan who's desperate to beleive his PS3 purchase was the bargain of the century("only 400 poundz for a supa cell computa? Stupid xbots hahaha this is a bargain!";) and you're cracking now, I can sense it. :D

    And as for this...

    The presentation you linked to had no information on performance. Check it again... None of the sources you linked to had information on performance...

    There are no performance figures... they didnt disclose them because they likely arent allowed, I never gave any performance figures, so why were you looking for them? They werent needed, all that was, was an indication of the room for improvement left in that area and you cant argue with that. In that very article it brushed up a little on the strenths also which along with the information Ive provided already on VMX128 should show you that Vector processing(and all the tasks which fall under it i.e. the ones that you've heard about from PS3 devs) is something SPEs and VMX128 are both well equipped for. So you're knee jerk "VMX128 is nothing like the SPEs they cant be used for the same things" defensive reaction was bullshit Im sorry to break it to you. I provided a source, IBM, Xbox technology group... you as usual tried to dismiss the information I gave with nothing but Semitope.tm to back you up.

    Here's another source which should explain to you although not the same(the code itself will be totally different), VMX128 and the SPE's do share quite alot in common.

    [link url=http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/06/xbox360-2.ars/4
    ]http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/...[/link]

    "It may be significant that the number of registers in VMX-128 matches the number of vector registers in the Cell's SPEs. Furthermore, both the Xenon's VMX unit and the Cell's SPEs implement a specialized subset of the VMX/Altivec instruction set, with some VMX instructions removed and other new instructions added in to help with 3D rendering."

    Another bit of information which I noticed compliments(although does seem complicated from a design perspective albeit very useful if they manage to do it right) what the XNA presentation touched up on about approaching the VMX128 registers as a number of processors is:

    "One bit of information that I do have about VMX-128 is that it is possible to carve out a pool of registers in the large register file and to keep them persistent across multiple function calls. This allows separate functions within a thread to share and work on a common, global set of matrices. This should give a solid boost to performance on matrix-intensive code that is designed to take advantage of this feature. "

    Ive said time and time again to you to stop looking for real world performance figures because there arent any. I repeat, there arent any real world performance figures... that means that neither YOU or I or anyone else knows for sure how they compare on real world performance(so no you dont "win" by default because there are no figures, I feel sorry for you if thats the best arguement you can muster) but we can take a well educated guess based on what we do know and whats already infront of us, so to speak. Ive shown I know a fair bit more than you do about the subject, not to be smug but lets face it, it's true... but keep "reading" and searching for whatever it is you are looking for on B3D for that magic peace of information that will prove you right. *rolls eyes*

    There likely wont be any real world performance figures, the best we can do is learn the differences of the hardware, the strengths and weaknesses and make informed opinions. You have done nothing of the sort you've just clung onto "there no official specs from sony on the RSX so the GPU is still a closely gaurded secret full of powa!", "there arent any figures in those sources so you're just wrong man! LOLZ" and then act like you've got all the facts on your side when you havent given anything, circumstancial or otherwise.

    The only times Ive got annoyed at you is when you are being ignorrant, creating petty strawmen and being condescending without actually knowing much at all about what he's talking about. The rest of the time your arguements are so poorly thought out that it's not been to difficult to show everyone how clueless you are, it's been jolly good fun actually. :)
    Edited by Calgon at 27/10/09 @ 18:07

  • Calgon #117 3 years ago

    "I told you already to stop assuming what I am."

    I'll assume it 'till I see a change in your attitude, as I would with anyone else, sorry chum. Ask any fanboy if he's a fanboy you get the same answer everytime and there'd be no such thing as fanboys if we assumed it to be true.

    "I dont see anything supporting your statements."

    Which statements in particular?

    All of my statements are correct, when I make a statement as in stating a fact(which has thus far only been on how the hardware works and direct quotes from devs... which you have been incorrect on in the past) I provide a source(IBM and the Xbox Advanced Technology Group/XNA are little more reputable than your average B3D forum post).

    When I make an opinion you will just have to accept it because I base this on what Ive learned so far(which is a lot more than you have from the looks of it) unless YOU can prove me wrong, which you can't. You do know the distinction between stating an informed opinion(or uninformed when its you ;) lolz) and stating a fact about the way the hardware works and the features it supports(which I have backed up) dont you?

    The devs on B3D all agree with you? It that what you are saying? From the many examples Ive seen, they certainly dont beleive the PS3 to be superior as you do, they dont support *your* claims is the more accurate statement. I've said the majority of impartial devs call the systems even on the whole(each having their unique strengths, if we left it to you PS3 has no weaknesses and 360 has no strengths is what we'd be left with), if you are telling me that they all support your beleifs, even if you are limiting it to B3D then Im sorry but I think you are lying to yourself because thats certainly not what Im seeing at all.

  • intpleeus #118 3 years ago

    Les said: "It's quite a stretch from "well above average" to 'remarkable' or 'unusually great'."

    How is that a stretch? "Well above average" is "unusually great," because it's not usual to be well above average. It is also remarkable, since we tend to remark upon things that are not average. This isn't something I want to argue about. I used the the word "extraordinary" to mean "out of the ordinary," because that's what it usually means. If you insist on interpreting it differently, then you are simply refusing to understand what I wrote.
    Edited by intpleeus at 27/10/09 @ 00:21

  • Calgon #119 3 years ago

    Ok even though you've missquoted me on both of those statements, they are both opinions, I didnt make up any figures I made an opinion and told you what I based those opinions on.

    As for the discussion you linked to, without comment from Team Ninja all you are going to get is assumption there too.

    The xenos beats the RSX... and not just beats, beats soundly

    For real world conditions I do beleive its the stronger of the two(i.e. in raw terms on paper they may look about even but when it comes to real world usage they arent), unless you can prove the widely regarded as valid specs of the RSX are incorrect(why not ask that question in that very thread you just joined? Ask whats regarded to be the specs of the RSX: Pixel pipelines, vertex pipelines, ALUs, ROPs, clockspeed... thats all that was needed for that comparison) then that PCvsConsole comparion is reason enough to support my statements for real world usage(infact theres some posts on B3D talking about the texture fetch differences and what it means for the RSX pixel processing fillrate, Id have thought you'd already seen that discussion though*shurgs*... which is the main basis for that comparison, Xenos has 16 seperate/independant texturing units 32 unfiltered textures total.). Everything else about the technology advantages Xenos will have over an older chip like RSX, the custom features and such I have also provided sources for.

    The xenons vmx128 BS can match Cell SPUs.

    You'll have to run that by me again, did you miss the last 4 posts completely from me? Give me a quote where I said those exact words. *edit - LOL I just noticed the "BS" remark there, just goes to show you are getting a little touchy about something you were obviously not aware of up until yesterday*

    I actually said I still beleive CELL to be faster but by a margin much smaller than we were led to beleive, when it comes to real world performance. I base this on whats infront of us and what we know about both systems, Uncharted2 = full CELL utilisation with a proprietary software engine and how far they've yet to go with 360 in the same area = there is no direct comparison to be made yet.

    I said it can be used for the very same tasks (streaming data to Xenos and such to improve Xenos' output), which it can and again I provided sources for this information. Ok since you simply arent getting it, look at the comparison chart for Xenon and CELL, notice the GFLOPs difference, this is the bulk of where these comments are coming from.The floating point figure is a good indication of a systems vector processing capabilities. Agreed?

    Now considering we already have full SPE utilisation with CELL feeding RSX, the same cant be said about VMX128 where a large chunk of Xenons floating point power also comes from. There would be a performance increase, thats a fact, by how much we wont know(other than the several hunder percent remark from the XNA team which indicates it would be a pretty significant performance gain) untill someone does a proprietary engine for 360, that makes full use of VMX128 across those 6 hardware threads and the XPS features for Xenon to Xenos communications(similar to what we've seen with CELL>RSX) along with all the other 360 specific advantages on offer.

    There is nothing wrong with what I'm saying there, nobody has done this yet so its fair comment that this would make for a much more direct real world comparison than we've been able to do thus far.
    Edited by Calgon at 27/10/09 @ 01:25

  • Diomedes #120 3 years ago

    It must be really frustrating for you ,Calgon ,to post those lenghty posts citing rumours and opinions from the last years instead of facts and then have all that hard work trying to show the 360 as clearly superior trounced by the reality that the best PS3 games look a lot better that the best 360 offerings.

    As for the MSOPS number I cited Nvidia directly ,RSX can do 100MSOPS and that only matches with the chip being 550mhz.Refering to some hypothetic last-minute downgrade that someone at B3D though could have happened some 3 years ago isnt anything more that some obscure and old rumour.

    I agreed to say the Xenos is more versatile and "modern" that the RSX,but you guys are stretching it a bit trying to make the RSX a 7800.I remember very clearly the interviews with Nvidia back in the day ,and yes the RSX is built around the G70 tech ,yes it doesnt have unified pipelines ,but it was said by Nvidia themselves that the chip was a lot faster that a 7800GTX and had some 30% more transistors in it(thats why some people in B3d refer to it as a G71 and have compared it to the 7950 card) ... not to mention that is a custom chip for a closed system no way it would have the 60% efficiency you would like so badly.

    As for the CPU ,the benchmarks are 77 Gflops for Xenon and 210 Gflops for the Cell.Now thats nearly 3 times more power.

    English isnt my native language and wont enter such a discussion with you,it would take too much time ,backtracking to links of several years ago ,plus enter the subjetive field of judging some rumours as valid while dismissing others with pretty much the same validity.

    For me ,reality is what validates my position.Multiplattform games have pretty much the same performance and when the PS3 has a weaker version its usually by a very slight margin and usually because its a direct port that used some of the 360 strenghts(Edram mainly,and AA associated) and wich code was adapted directly for the PS3.Now ,if developers didnt opt to design games for the weaker plattform so they can work in both we could see some benefits in games as 50gb of assets ,7.1 sound,HDD to cache textures,constant streaming from the disc etc.Then we would see how the 360 would cope with that.Anyway , for now its a rethoric arguement because developers are designing games for the dvd,HDD-less plattforms to assure bringing the game to the three HD plattforms.

    And ,I will have to repeat it ,the top of each console shows the PS3 clearly in advantage over the 360.Games that use HDD in its design (LBP) ,games that have a lot more online players (60 Resistence 2,256 MAg ,even the 32 of Killzone 2 and Warhawk you dont see it usually in the 360) with the online graphics not taking any hit ,more games in 1080p... and finally games like Gt5,Wipeout HD ,Uncharted 2 ,Killzone 2 ,Infamous(considerably more powerful that the multi GTAIV and Saints Rows 2),MGS4 ...hell even Motorstorm Pacific Rift looks remarkably better that any 360 exclusive racer....now we can discuss until the end of times if the Xenon handles graphics as well as the Cell or what is the real advantage of the Xenos over the RSX ,it doesnt mean anything once you have the games on one console looking better that the other.

    Really ,you can try as hard as you want to impose your pov (Cell=Xenon and Xenos vastly superior to the RSX) but once the crossplattform games look about the same (except in really crap ports ,and some games look better on the PS3 too) and the PS3 exclusives look better I think that speaks volumes about the reality.If the 360 is as powerful as the PS3 (or more ,as you are saying because CPUs are equal and its GPU would be far superior) then it has to show it its as simple as that ......
    Edited by Diomedes at 27/10/09 @ 04:06

  • Machiavellian #121 3 years ago

    Diomedes
    Motorstorm Pacific Rift looks remarkably better that any 360 exclusive racer

    But it doesn't look better than dirt2??? Doesn't run at 60FPS or include the same physics. Probably would be eaiser to compare apples to apples.

    Personally I would still give Calgon he edge. At least he has provided good material to support his point of view. So far semitope and you Diomedes have only provide an opinion that has a lot of holes. I give the edge to Sony because the have wonderful devs which is the main reason I bought a PS3. I like to know technical specs but it definitely doesn't rule my purchase decision. Good games is what open my wallet and the PS3 and 360 has a host of good games.

    What I do see is that games are looking better with each release on both platforms. So far from what I have seen, I would put Assassin Creed 2 and Just Cause 2 right up there with Uncharted 2on the graphics end. I do need to see more media to make up my mind. Also the new crysis and rage engine looks great so we will see how those stack up against Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2. At least from my perspective there are only 3truly stunning games on the PS3 and thats Killzone 2 and Uncharted 1/2. Everything else looks great but do not seperate themselves from 3rd party output.

  • Les #122 3 years ago

    "If you insist on interpreting it differently, then you are simply refusing to understand what I wrote."

    You're the one insisting on a non-standard interpretation of "extraordinary", not me. But fine, if your argument originally was that Naughty Dog are a "well above average" (thus not world class) developer than we agree.

  • des #123 3 years ago

    It looks like Sony fans have time warped to 2006...beyond3d even had to close the thread...everybody is biased against the PS3 waahh,waahh,but but teh Cell....lolz

  • FxckOFF_ignorance #124 3 years ago

    poor shader on 360 due to poor shader power.

    1) eDRAM as ROP, so it's irrelevant to render.
    2) eDRAM has only 10MB buffer
    3) kind of RADEON has Vertex Shading CHEAT (it revealed on 3DMARK06 batch test)
    4) rendering method is not dependent on bandwidth
    5) R500 does "tile rendering" CHEAT like PowerVR

    no.2 is very important.
    if 360 trying real 720p and 2xMSAA, it exactly can't.
    it required (1280 * 720 * 8 * 2) = 14745600 (about 14MB)
    clearly, impossible.
    1120 * 585 * 8 *2 = 10483200
    likewise CAN'T.
    it can't resolved with bandwidth so R500 does "Tile rendering CHEAT" like that case.
    of course, it is not only resolution. even related to texture format. (so 360 can't process real FP32 HDR)


    this article writer is totally ignorance.

  • Calgon #125 3 years ago

    "As for the MSOPS number I cited Nvidia directly ,RSX can do 100MSOPS and that only matches with the chip being 550mhz."

    No you didnt cite them directly, you made an error that confused things and now you've changed it to 100MSOPs?

    There are mulitple ways of arriving at operations per second figure, so no it wouldnt confirm the clockrate, unless you think you knew how they arrived at them?(an empty statement from you)

    "NVIDIA did announce that the RSX would be able to execute 136 shader operations per cycle, a number that is greater than ATI's announced 96 shader ops per cycle. Given that we don't know anything more about where NVIDIA derived this value from, we can't be certain if we are able to make a direct comparison to ATI's 96 shader ops per cycle. "

    These are the figures you were citing, operations per cycle not Millions of operations per second, 136 to 96 and they arent even directly comparable, especially since ATI gave theirs first(do you expect Nvidia to play fair on that mark given that they know there are a number of ways to arrive at the figures and are well experienced in the specs game?). The figures that MS gave to IGN are no less valid(RSX - 74.8GOPs. Xenos - 80GOPs).

    "Refering to some hypothetic last-minute downgrade that someone at B3D though could have happened some 3 years ago isnt anything more that some obscure and old rumour. "

    No the figure you miquoted was from before E3 2005, way before the PS3 launched, if you are going to try and "old" me then I will say your data is 4 years+ old. Theres nothing obscure about it, according to the reports Nvidia didnt make any changes, Sony decreased the clock at system level in the PS3 along with the memory (to 500mhz and 650mhz respectively).

    The original source was the Inquirer, from one of their reliable sources(unnamed because it was supposed to be under NDA). It got plenty of attention at the time(the PS3 fanboys had the obvious, Inquirer are rubbish reaction) but yet not one PS3 dev nor Sony came forward to say it was was false as they usually would. Infact the opposite happened sources close to Sony developers seemed to comfirm it. Again though its only 50Mhz do you have any idea how insignificant that is in the grand scheme of things? Theres a good thread on neogaf about it I found to confirm what happened for you:

    [link url=http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116735
    ]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.p...[/link]

    "It was said by Nvidia themselves that the chip was a lot faster that a 7800GTX and had some 30% more transistors in it(thats why some people in B3d refer to it as a G71 and have compared it to the 7950 card)"

    Well its also said that more transistors doesnt tell you alot on its own depends what theyve been used for(its not a battle of who's got the most transistors here), it could be a hybrid between the two(the ALUs are said to be G70 level IIRC so thats probably where the Sony employees were coming from, it all sounds kind of like what Nvidia did for Xbox's NV2a which was between GF3 and GF4) it doesnt matter either way, there are set rules for calculating pixel fillrate, pixel processing and vertex processing. Also theres nothing been mentioned from any dev source that says this should be refered to as a "custom" chip no way, not in the same way Xenos is thats for sure. Its about as custom as the NV2a was for Xbox is the sensible conclusion. Closed system or not the 60% efficiency figure doesnt come from your hope that the figure has anything to do with DirectX, it a figure for the hardware itself(doesnt matter what system you put it in, it's also to do with the advantages that the USA brings). Are you telling me you beleive RSX is more efficient than GPUs that came out later and cost more to make by the same company that designed it? Thats a bit of a stretch of the imagination dont you think?

    If you know the number of pipelines, rops, ALUS and clockspeed then you are able to work out the theoretical max. If semitope had bothered to do a quick google for "PS3 specs" he'd see widespread use of the figures he is disputing, yet no developer comments or comments from Sony on them being invalid or innaccurate.

    "As for the CPU ,the benchmarks are 77 Gflops for Xenon and 210 Gflops for the Cell.Now thats nearly 3 times more power. "

    Your "benchmark" figures are incorrect Xenon has 115.2 GFLOPS and CELL has 217.6 GFLOPS, these *aren't* benchmarks though they are theoretical specs, my whole argument has been although CELL is probably marginally more powerfull(except for general purpose power, which *is* important, games arent all graphics processing orientated. Too much of that on CELL especially will make other aspects of the gamecode suffer, which will make for some pretty but dull gameplay experiences) the difference cant be anything like it looks there though(again they are theoretical specs... not real world benchmarks).

    I really hope you didnt beleive that CELL was not only 2times faster at floating point --which is nonsense compared to how they fair in real world performance IMO-- but 3times? You're not doing your credibility any favours there.

    "then have all that hard work trying to show the 360 as clearly superior trounced by the reality that the best PS3 games look a lot better that the best 360 offerings."

    If you'd bothered to read my posts you'd see thats not my opinion afterall, I suggested the CPU power gap isnt nearly what Sony want you and every other rabid Sony fanboy to beleive and that with Xenos being stronger than RSX that the only sensible thing to do is call it even. They have different strengths but on the whole, they are about even.

    "but once the crossplattform games look about the same (except in really crap ports ,and some games look better on the PS3 too) and the PS3 exclusives look better I think that speaks volumes about the reality."

    Does it? Or does it speak volumes about the importance of first party support or more importantly proprietary software built from the ground up to exploit your hardware to its fullest?

    UC2 does that for PS3... can you name me a game that does the same for the Xbox360? Exactly! The difference isn't a huge margin to begin with(I admit Uncharted 2 does have 1st part 360 software beat but lets get back down to earth a little there hey mr PS3fanboy?), the problem is MS seem reluctant to invest in first party this gen, they also seem to value future Backwards Compatibilty over performance here and now. I hope UC2 will force a reaction from MS, this kind of competition is a good thing and there might just be enough time for it if MS were serious about 360 having a lengthy lifespan.

  • Diomedes #126 3 years ago

    Calgon ,what I am telling you is that 550mhz or 500 mhz the MSOPS number was given by Nvidia and its 100 for the 360 96.Now to calculare it you need the number of alus ,pipelines ,number of operations per cycle and finally clock speed.With 550mhz it would be so easy that the other parameters had to be only the same as the 7800 to achieve the 100MSops number.

    Evidently both GPUs are very different and work differently but you cant just take selected data from the Xenos to conclude its "soundly" superior to the RSX.If you look carefully to the data from both chips the pixel fill rate of the RSX is greater(4.4 gigapixel per second against 4.0 for the Xenos) ,the Texel fill rate is also superior (13.2 Gigapixels against 8.0 for the Xenos),Dot product operations is also far greater on the RSX (51 against 24) ,the MSOPS the same (100 against 96) and so on.I have seen too many times the xbot trick of armwrestling the numbers (with artifices such as accounting the 48 pipelines for vertex to pulverize the RSX numbers and then do the same with the 48 pipelines with shader to win again in that ...thing is you cant simply use one of the two,or the usual reducing the RSX fill rate to half because you impose it has to do it with 2xAA etc) to fall on that I am sorry.

    If you want to check the specs for both chips here you have the wikipedia entry for both:

    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)
    ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(grap...[/link]
    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Reality_Synthesizer%27
    ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_%27Real...[/link]

    As for it being a custom chip or not its evident it is.It has another 8 redundant pipelines for example ,it is considerably bigger that a 7800 and according to Nvidia was designed specifically to work in tandem with the Cell.

    Looking carefully at the numbers I am of the opinion ,as many developers do in fact ,that both chips are roughly equivalent.The RSX seems to have some more raw power but the 360 is more modern ,versatile and has the Edram chip that allows for easy AA so I would give a little advantage to MS chip.As I already conceded it is also more efficient and works better with unoptimized code.So ,little victory for MS there and its a truly masterful chip in its desing providing it arrived in 2005.But to say its "vastly superior" to the RSX is a complete mistake.In fact ,it did hurt a lot more the PS3 the early days when the OS was weighting some 96 mb against the 360 32 that the supposed superiority of the 360 GPU....once that footprint of the OS has nearly vanished(now its at 44mb still somewhat bigger but not so much) the difference in crossplattform games has been reduced to very minor things.

    As for the CPU I stand corrected the Xenos has 115Gflops( although I swear I heard the 77 number back in the day) but Cell is still twice the power.Xenon does better general purpose things(double-check calculations etc) but we are talking a videogame console here and most of the required tasks are single-precision ones as with graphics ,sound etc.You arent running Excel you know.I dont know if being better at general purpose gives the 360 anything over the Cell for a videogame console to say the truth,I havent seen a single game that had to be dumbed down on the PS3 for example in AI due to this.And if we follow that logic thread ,the Wii must be for absolutely retarded people isnt it?

    Besides ,BD allows for constant streaming ,the HDD allows to cache texture data in the HDD ,the memory is somewhat faster,the discs are 50gb and can even go up from that number,some games as LBP cant be done without HDD .....

    Just to say ,the PS3 is a somewhat more powerful machine.Or more capable machine if you feel more comfortable with that.Thing is ,you need really a lot more power to show very different results so I could agree with you the PS3 wont ever appear to be far ahead of the 360.

    As for your arguement about 360 lacking first party support and big budget projects....the 360 has been 4 years in the market,its very easy to code on,has behind MS who is the more powerful economically of the three enterprises involved with videogames right now...what you are saying may be true but its an excuse nonetheless.If the generation ends like this at the end the PS3 will have had the most impressive games and excuses wont appease fans.I think the 360 still has room for improvement .MW2 and AC2 will push forward the machine in the tech department outclassing the best offerings of the machine to date(those two are also appearing on the PS3 though) for example.Thing is ,seeing offerings as Halo ODST and its still 640p graphics and Forza 3 and its graphics (an improvement ,but not a big one just some polish to filters etc) by MS top coders it seems the room for improvement is smaller that what the PS3 has left.As I said before if the 360 is as capable as the PS3 it only has to demostrate it....right now with things as Halo ODST and Forza 3 that technically are way behind Killzone 2 and Gran Turismo 5 ...it just isnt the case.

  • Calgon #127 3 years ago

    Diomedes Ive seen the specs(many many times) its not me that had them confused in the first place its you.

    I realise english isnt your first language but dont think you can hide behind it when it's obvious I've caught some glaring errors in your "expert analysis"(Im sorry but although you do seem a little bit informed unlike Semitope who wont admit when he's been proved wrong and doesnt seem to understand most of what he's repeating, but your information has been innacurrate and full of holes).

    What is evident is RSX is not a custom chip, its directly based off a PC GPU core, shares the same ALUs ect. To go from "theres some extra transistors" to "theres an extra 8 pipelines (I mean 8 redundant pipelines??? what are you talking about? I hope you arent talking about the ROPS there) in there and its completely custom" is a large leap of faith and without any quotes from nvidia or developers it seems you have this completely wrong... but I'll humor you lets see if you can find that source I want to see it. RSX may be a little bit different to is G70 and G71 cousines but nowhere near enough to call it custom(they share the same DNA). So again RSX is not custom, by all accounts its looking similar to what NV2a was for its time... you've not named anything custom about it(extra transistors does not = custom, thats just absurd).

    Xenos is stronger than RSX Im not going to repeat myself, nothing you have brought forward(remebering some of it has been incorrect... its Nvdias claimed Shader Ops Per Cycle not "MSOPS" which you keep mistakingly citing it as, perhaps you need to look at some sources a little more reputable than wiki if thats where you got it from, your explanation of how they arrived at those figures was complete assumption also, I even gave a quote from arstechnica telling you they might not be directly comparable, I gave the GSOPs comparison figures which showed Xenos is stronger so we have a stalemate) has helped your cause, all you have is the original spec list which we knew back in 2005 before they launched. Im basing my statements on what we've learned since then, along developer comments(both first party and multiplatform) and real world performance. I dont remember using "Vastly" I said it has to be the stronger of the two, they are not even. Just as the CPUs arent even(btw General Purpose is nothing to do with Excel or Word game code doesnt just consist of graphics and sound on console CPUs either, its *everything* else... stop and think about that for a second... computational power that lends well to lots of different tasks rather than simple/specialised tasks, so dont try and paint it as insignificant to games), you are overstating one advantage and denying another all in favour of your favoured platform. It cannot be the way you see it when they are still this close and 360 hasnt even had same amount of low level optimisation or Xenon>Xenos co-operation(the technology *is* there I've provided the proof already) or any use of the custom features MS put into the 360.

    You can cling onto your hope that 360 hasnt a chance of matching those games you hold in such regard for your PS3(you are entitled to your opinion but thats all it is), I made a pretty strong case that its quite likely it could given the same treatment that those PS3 titles had... there hasnt been anything like that on 360 development yet.

    Theres alot of ignorrance in your comparrison of 1st party development between the two consoles there, you seem to misunderstand easy to develop for doesnt mean easy to use to its full potential, its easy to get good performance but the get the best out of the machine they are going to have to do the things Ive been talking about. This certainly wont be easy, it will take alot of investment of time and money and when performance is "good enough" perhaps its hard to convince them to go that extra mile? This is were increased competition could be a good thing.

    As for your title comparison:

    Halo ODST vs Killzone2? Oh come on are you going to try an sink that low? Last gen engine revamped to fit 360 in a short amount of time > Next gen engine built from the ground up with many years spent on just the engine alone.

    Forza3 vs GT5 is atleast a little bit fairer and Forza3 certainly has its strong points but its still not a like for like comparison.

    The Forza3 engine could be brand new(I seem to remember the devs saying this but Im not certain on it) or it could be Forza2s engine optimised even if it is brand new.... 2years between a new engine and a LOT of new features and content vs 5-6 years and its still lookin weaker(from its last press outing/event) in some areas(if Im being fair they spend alot of time on the cars, which there are lot of and the lighting accross the board which always gets a mention).

    As Ive said before my concern is that it could be that MS is planning on spending most of its budget trying to captivate the casual market for the remainder of this gen, rather than ramping up 1st party investment on hardcore titles and technology, so we may never get to see the likes of a real X-Engine(well it was roumored to be a Toolset and set of libraries and examples for devs to use as a platform to build their own on rather than an acual engine... much like the EDGE toolset). Hopefully come next year's E3 we will see that it was a genuine leak, when we see the first games based on it in action(that would have gave them one full year with the new tools and kits which is the minimum you'd expect).

    http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php...
    Edited by Calgon at 28/10/09 @ 04:44

  • Machiavellian #128 3 years ago

    semitope calgon is a 360 fanboy... quite obviously

    A fanboy calling out another fanboy, now thats comedy gold there.The only difference between Calgon and yourself is that at least he knows what he is talking about when making a point. Maybe you should take some pointers so you can crusade the PS3 better without the obvious holes.

  • Calgon #129 3 years ago

    Right Im done here anyway :D. It does seem to be going around in circles a little now.

    I dont want to feel like Im "preaching to the unconverted" like so many PS3 worshipers, all Im doing is expressing my veiws and backing them up, which I've done soundly. Im not saying it's been done and I have the proof that 360 whoops PS3, Im saying there is room for improvement to close that gap(which isnt all that great), in what areas and why(providing supporting evidence for those theories).

    I kind of feel like Im spoiling their little PS3 moment after all their years of hurt(which is why there are alot of bitter attitudes towards 360 fans), after 3 years+ the multiplatform gap has closed(360 still edging it slighty), those PS3 titles that had lengthy dev cycles are finally being released and the latest do seem to have the edge thanks to all the effort... but the edge isnt that great and 360 does have room for improvement.

    End of discussion as far a I'm concerned, its been fun semitope and diomedes.
    Edited by Calgon at 28/10/09 @ 05:04

  • axtmoerder #130 3 years ago

    i did another video regarding the drastically reduced polygon count :roll:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvcS0gdmt7Q

  • Diomedes #131 3 years ago

    I am finished here,but just some little clarification Calgon.

    In PC GPU you may have defective vertex or shader pipelines per yield.To increase the efficiency of the production they simply sell the ones with the damaged pipelines like lower end and a cheaper price ...thats the main difference between the GTs and GtX for example.

    With consoles ,its not the same,the games are designed for a concrete performance and you cant allow pipelines not working.

    The RSX has 24 pipelines for shader and 8 for vertex ,and has an additional 8 pipelines for redundancy to avoid precisely this kind of problems.

    Sony paid 30 million dollars to Nvidia and a team of 60 engineers worked 6 months to make a custom chip based on the NV47 arquitechture for the PS3.Do you really believe they would have put that same effort when they could just have released it alongside a 7800 and call it a day?So based on G70 (G71 more like ,G70 was 110 nm ,G71 was the implementation of G70 to 90 nm) or not the engineering (redundacy pipelines to avoid defective ones,more transistors ,conection with the CPU memory through its own bus etc) makes it a custom chip.

    I said that I give the MS GPU some advantage over the PS3 one specially because the Edram and the unified pipelines.At the same time ,its clear the frontal opposition of the industry made impossible to follow the path Sony had already in mind about the PS3 GPU (it was a 800mhz chip,1Gb of Ram,edram at 1.2 Tb/sec and irregular rasterization ...and no shader support whatsoever for that you had to use the SPUs) so they had to make and arrangement with Nvidia (applauded by the industry) and received a mid-generation chip that missed some key features and had to do with a mild boost in raw power instead.Sony created new tools to improve the situation and managed way better results that what could have been previously possible(remember when people claimed Xenos could do twice the polygon charge?).Thing is ,right now ,we cant see any difference in polygon count ,framerate ,textures work etc between the two GPUs and when we see some of these occasionally its usually some slight difference and many times because the code was just ported over from one machine to the other.Thats why I say that even if the MS GPU is superior (and not in all accounts ,look at fill rate ,texel fill rate ,dot product etc) they are roughly the same...and the PS3 has some advantages in other fields (faster main memory,BD storage and streaming capabilities,better CPU,more cache memory , HDD in each console ,etc).In truth (and maybe because Sonys efforts to max the RSX performance) the PS3 suffered more the lack of Ram due to the OS in the early days(until the firware reduced its size considerably) that the 360 GPU "sound"(after you) superiority.

    Both are marvellous machines ,to the point they still can compete (losing ,but they can compete)with the PC games even after 3-4 years after their launch ...thats something we havent seen ever since the dedicated GPUs arrived to the PC world.I still see the PS3 having more inside being able to complement HDD,Blu Ray storage and streaming ,Cell,RSX ,OPENGL2.0 evolving etc.Xbots(and I am not saying you are one,though your rethoric suggest so) usually center on the strenghts of the 360 against some PS3 soft points but tend to ignore some of the 360 weak points so these kind of face-offs are pointless....but just to remember you the 360 also has its own(DVD drive,not HDD in each console so you cant design some games pretending anyone can play it,the edram is a big ally but also a weak point as it cant process a 1080p image,CPU and GPU use the same bus to the memory pull so there can be bottlenecks,6 threads against Cells 9 ,it never did the jump to DirectX10 so stuck with DirectX9 libraries ,etc).....the PS3 no doubt had and still has some weak points but to each their own.

    As Insomniac just said the PS3 still has two or even 3 years until its maxed out.The 360 I am sure will give more that whats currently giving but I doubt two years from now we will see radical changes just some slow evolution...the tools are there ,the libraries too,developers know very well the machine and how to code for it.....dont get me wrong it will improve (I am sure CODMW2 will be the better looking 360 FPS in a month and AC2 will put the sandbox games a step further technically in the machine) question is if it will improve as much as the PS3 ones the current flow of events suggest just the contrary.But we will see.

  • Calgon #132 3 years ago

    @Semitope "What makes you think he knows what he is talking about?"
    Well the fact that Ive provided alot of sources, solid ones(IBM, XNA, B3D, ATI, Arstechnica ect. even PcVsConsole is a good source, you only dismissed it because you'd never heard of it... a good source is an accurate one) you and Diomedes provide nothing. Ive corrected mistakes from both of you, isnt that an indication that I am pretty well informed? Also note that Im not just repeating something I heard without understanding(something which you have been doing) Ive given lots of explanation throughout(thats why my posts have been so long lol).

    As I said you dont have to agree with my opinions but if you are trying to make out its ME that doesnt understand and you do... Im sorry but thats just fantasy.

    @Diomedes

    Ugh I cant resist adding one last reply because RSX isnt custom, thats just rubbish... compared to something like Xenos RSX simply cannot be considered "custom", "custom tailored for the PS3" like the NV2a was for the Xbox... yes! This is where you are getting confused. And as for the amount of engineers and months spent, thats about normal infact I think they spent even longer than that for the Xbox part back in 2000. They would have tailored it, they had to make it fit PS3s needs(yes theres a bus connection directly to CELL but thats just a bus, a system feature rather than a GPU feature... 360 has this through a Highspeed FSB too) but the chip itself(the architecture, features, components) is not custom, its just a PC based chip tailored to fit the PS3. A custom chip, would be something new/totallydifferent from what was available at the time, RSX doesnt fit under that category. Understand Im not saying its exactly the same as any chip on the PC market, NV2a never was either, but theres no "untapped potential" so to speak there because its all well known tech.

    The RSX has 24 pipelines for shader and 8 for vertex ,and has an additional 8 pipelines for redundancy to avoid precisely this kind of problems.

    I know what redundancy is, but why are mentioning it?(its of no relevance to the discussion on whether its custom or not) You do realise thats to improve yeilds in manufacturing... it wont make a blind bit of difference for performance because they wont be used, console developement couldnt work like that.

    "DVD drive,not HDD in each console so you cant design some games pretending anyone can play it,the edram is a big ally but also a weak point as it cant process a 1080p image,CPU and GPU use the same bus to the memory pull so there can be bottlenecks,6 threads against Cells 9 ,it never did the jump to DirectX10 so stuck with DirectX9 libraries ,etc"

    Of course they both have their weaknesses(many of which can be worked around on the 360 too like PS3 devs have been working on) but the majorit of that quote from you there is drivel! The DVD and HDD comments are fairly accurate but the DVD drive is still faster on the whole than the BD on PS3. The Edram comment is a little sketchy, since even if they arent using it for a frame buffer it can be put to good use and save a LOT of bandwidth which is always usefull for performance. Sharing the same bus? There havent been any complaints of bottlenecks there from devs, even then they can bypass main memory completley if they wanted to and use the shared compressed data formats between Xenon and xenos which would mean atleast 2x effective bandwidth on that data(theres a link from hotchips I posted earlier that has the XNA presentation on the 360 architecture the "CPU data streaming" slide explains this well). Also its not 6 threads vs 9 threads that shows a complete lack of understanding how CELL works its would be 5-6 HW threads vs 6 SPEs at best(the PPE is feeding those SPEs which is necessary for optimal performance so isnt in the equation but you shouldnt be referring to them as threads anyway). They arent stuck with DirectX9 libraries at all the hardware is said to be directX9+(some features from DX10 and 11 in there too infact) level but the 360API is custom(its not DX9 at all) and XNA have been updating it where possible since the console launched.

    As Insomniac just said the PS3 still has two or even 3 years until its maxed out.

    They arent the top devs though, Naughty Dog are based on their performance and they say theyve basically maxed it out with Uncharted2, thats not to say there wont be improvement, they can work more efficiently or work "smarter" to get more with less but those are the facts. What is true is that they've made full use of CELL and RSX in that game and got the most they could out of what they have to offer.

    The same is not true for 360 development, it hasnt had years and years of expert lowlevel optimisation and coding, there are very few proprietary 360 engines at all infact. You dont seem to understand console development much at all to be honest or maybe you are being deliberately ignorrant.

    "The 360 I am sure will give more that whats currently giving but I doubt two years from now we will see radical changes just some slow evolution..."

    Thats your trouble, you havent a clue about 360 hardware or development progress(uninformed opinions, you dont have a good idea at all, so stop pretending Ive told you exactly how it is and given supporting evidence), its ingnorrance on your part and Ive given the proof 3 times over, youve given nothing but innaccurate information. Again though you are quite entitled to your opinion. ;)
    Edited by Calgon at 28/10/09 @ 18:22

  • Calgon #133 3 years ago

    @semitope - Again an empty statement, which claims? Tell me whats not supported?

    Everything regarding whats in the 360 IS supported by the links Ive given. I.e. what technology is there(that hasnt been used yet), and a good idea how much room for improvement there could be if it was fully exploited(again no figures given but a significant amount, this has come from the XNA team which was formely the Xbox Advanced Technology group). You have made claims with only "my reading on B3D shows" without a single example given for anything you say, random posters on B3D wouldnt have been much use but alteast it would have been something and still you've failed to even provide that.

    You dont seem to beable to distinguish fact from opinion. Without deffinitive realworld maximum specs for both systems which we will never have, we can only form opinions. You are utterly stupid if this still hasnt sunk in yet, there is no deffinite proof of one being stronger than the other out there only opinion and theory... the most widely regarded opinion even amongst the dev community is they are about even on real world performance overall(everybody who knows anything about hardware knows that theoretical specs should always be taken with a pinch of salt, they aren't enough to settle it and never have been, especially when they dont look too far apart).

    I've already pointed out that you dont even read my sources given because you are obsessed with the idea that PS3 is something it's not. I mean could you be much more of a hypocrite?
    Edited by Calgon at 28/10/09 @ 18:33

  • Loghorn #134 3 years ago

    Look, guys, don't waste any more time on Semitope. Let him think what he wants.

  • lukaz #135 3 years ago

    "You can see that Team Ninja cut back where possible on PS3, and also introduced a v-synced 30FPS frame limit, whereas the 360 equivalents run without a limit (often running much slower than 60FPS)."

    That's a bit misleading. You should make it clearer that this refers to cut scenes only.

  • Calgon #136 3 years ago

    @semitope so you've taken to lying now?

    I said that given that RSX "needs" CELL where Xenos has been bettering RSX unless alot of effort has been put into SPE utilisation(see the first 2 years of multiplatform PS3 versions and compare them to the 360 versions... there was nothing to learn about RSX) YOU havent proved that RSX is as powerfull on real world performance, youve just claimed developers agree with you and havent given ANY examples(I have given the harmonix dev who stated Xenos has the real world fillrate advantage according to his team). How lame are you son? You haven't even disproved my PcVsConsole comparison because its correct(obviously many of examples shown wont happen in the real world, you couldnt ever dedicate all your ALUs to vertex for example but there are many likely scenarios where RSX wont beable to keep up with xenos thanks to the texture units).

    2) vmx gives xenon a lot of headroom

    What are you talking about? I said VMX128 is where a large chunk of Xenons Floating Point performance will come from and I HAVE provided sources for that. Ive explained a)What they are, b)What they are good at, c)That devs have yet to get the best performance out of them(there hasnt been alot of deep optimisation done on them, it would require devs to learn how to use them most efficiently), d)That on a proprietary 360 engine they could be used to feed Xenos in a similar way to the SPEs feeding RSX, with the added benifit of shared compression formats to save bandwidth.

    and no you havent shown how much room for improvement there is

    I never gave any figures except for the quote from a senior member of the formerly Xbox Advanced Technology Group(i.e. it beats any random poster you are likely to find on B3D... they are the people who advise the devs) several hundred percent.

    because ppl have in-fact been using it

    Well duh did you even take a look at the presentation? They didnt just start using them in 2007, the point was they havent been getting the most out of them and the presentation was a guide on some of the ways you might beable to do that(to potentially get a several hundred percent performance increase). Again YOU are assuming not me(the irony is you are assuming based on... well nothing but your love of Sony by the looks of it!), Im listening to the devs/experts and taking a good look to see if much has changed there, it hasnt yet but that X-Engine roumer is a start(its precisely the type of thing thats needed).

    Seriously how do you even think it verifies ANY "room for improvement"?

    ANY????? Are you really that deluded?

    What part of several hundred percent performance increase on floating point calculations and such dont you understand? Have we seen that sort of improvement in games since those released in 2008? No we havent.

    What part of, there is NO proprietary engine that makes full use of the features I talked about dont you understant? Have you heard of any devs doing LOWLEVEL optimisation on 360 like Naughty Dog and co spent YEARS on for PS3? Do you honestly think this would not make a difference to 360 performance? An 360 engine that makes full use of Xenon and Xenos with all the features they have to offer, code written from a low level with only 360 in mind. Does the information Ive given on the hardware point to any of this being "PC-Like" no it doesnt, its nothing like it, it would require devs to do exactly what they did for PS3 use a different approach that suits the hardware best.

    I think you are in denial here. There is a very strong case right infront of you and you have the nerve to claim there is none? What have you given exactly Semitope? You dont have a clue about 360 hardware or 360 development... atleast I have a bothered to gather what information there is and its certainly not looking like you are trying to tell it.

    Specs dont do that unless you include current usage and performance statistics.

    My god semitope what specs? What are you babbling about? Is this your idea of an arguement, I provide lots of supporting information, you provide nothing and demand figures or "its all bullshit"? Pathetic!

    The specs arent needed to know there is room for improvement, its common sense that if the experts are saying to get the best performance this is how you should approach development and so far nobody has done that properly yet then there would be a marked improvement over what has come before it. Im sorry if this SCARES you as a devoted Sony fanboy but theres a very strong case to be made, the only person claiming and assuming without anything to support them is YOU!

    How big is the the CPU difference? Much smaller than we were led to beleive is what everything Im seeing points to.

    CELL may be faster than Xenon at floating point but since we already have full SPE utilisation and not full VMX128 utilisation in the way XNA talked about (again I'll take XNA expert opinion over Semitope bullshit any day of the week) I mean several hundred percent may be vague but it will be significant(perhaps you need to look at the deffinition for "several" if you disagree). To me this says that 360 has an extra gear that hasn't been used yet so theres no way Im buying that there will ever be a game on PS3 that 360 couldnt do.

    Now run along because you arent worth wasting my time any longer, come back when you've learned the basics of games development and console technology. You've brought nothing but dismissal without any reasons for doing so, i.e. you've not even begun to even attempt disprove anything I, XNA, PVC and a large number of developers say... not that you'd have a hope of doing that.
    Edited by Calgon at 29/10/09 @ 18:07

  • Calgon #137 3 years ago

    "Look, guys, don't waste any more time on Semitope. Let him think what he wants."

    Good so Im not the only one who see's he talks alot of bullshit?

  • Calgon #138 3 years ago

    @semitope: I've faired a damn sight better than you have in this "discussion" as you call it.

    "You can't claim that vmx is not being used unless you are a dev."


    VMX Optimization: Taking it up a Level

    I never claimed it hasnt been used at all, it has but its been vastly under utilised. XNA work with the dev community and they are telling you even those who have used it havent got the best out of it. Thats just getting the best performance out of it too, the best *use* of it would also be linked in with the XPS/CPU data streaming features for Xenon and Xenos which again we havent seen yet.

    CPU Data Streaming Specs(slide 8)

    You cant claim its already been done(hypocrite of highest order because youve a much weaker case to make) when there is not one example you can give me, not one, it would take a proprietary engine(with low level optimisation which is unheard of in 360 development so far unless you'd like to give me some examples) in the first place for a fair comparison. You cant argue with it unless you can name me an example. Those very threads on beyond3D(which is obvioulsy the holy grail to you) I linked to on the "X-Engine" AND "VMX128 what we've learned" have quite a few developer comments on this very subject... they certainly dont echo your sentiments of "theres little improvement to be gained"(what do you really beleive your opinion is worth anyway? It would help if you knew what you were talking about in the first place).

    You are claiming features and hardware of a console you know very little about compared to the person you are arguing with have been FULLY utilised for optimum efficiency with NOTHING to support your theory... you are the one who needs to put up or shut up, you have nothing to support your claim, I do.

    You lose, end of discussion!
    Edited by Calgon at 29/10/09 @ 19:07

  • Les #139 3 years ago

    "Like I said before when the proof in games come out then there is an argument."

    Life would be much better for the xbots if they'd be capable to acknowledge the irony of them making claims of theoretical superiority... ;)

    /edit: lay-out
    Edited by Les at 29/10/09 @ 21:46

  • Loghorn #140 3 years ago

    @Semitope: I am NOT a 360 fanboy. As a matter of fact, I like both of those systems, but I just think that the 360 is a better gaming machine for most games, IMO. I mostly use my PS3 for exclusives & Blu-Ray, as I don't want to spend a lot of money on an inferior multiplat, but there are some exceptions such as Sigma 2 on PS3. If you don't like my opinion, then don't post about it. You're not in any position to call anyone a fanboy when you've been doing the same thing to everyone else, & I could call you a certain fanboy all the time by that logic, but I won't. So just Shut. Up.

  • perplexia #141 2 years ago

    Team Ninja rebuilt this from scratch and specifically tailored it for the PS3 and this is what they came up with?

    "Where the game directors have total control of the engine's polygon budget, we get to see the in-game engine at its very best, pumping out some insane levels of detail on Xbox 360."

    "Scenes with additional overdraw due to alpha effects such as explosions, also blatantly remove polygons in the Sigma edition in order to maintain frame-rate."

    It's pretty unbelievable to me that people devote their heart and soul into arguing the "power" of the PS3. I guess that's the power of marketing. I despise Sony for their rhetorical claims that gave the PS3 an air of superiority when it came out. In hindsight, it's very disappointing the blatantly false claims they've made about their system. When the first batches of games were released and 360 invariably looked better, the loyal following was forced to conclude that the mysterious "power" of the PS3 had not yet been harnessed and they were just ports after all, etc. We were to wait and bait our breath for the great potential to be realized.

    Some exclusives came out and we were bombarded with claims of unmatched, incredible graphics. MGS4, Uncharted. Yeah, I got the PS3, thankfully not to see these "incredible" graphics. Because I was genuinely disappointed. I fail to see how horribly blurred background images that make me nearsighted in order to keep a framerate when I move the game camera qualifies as stunning graphics. Some pretty good detail in a still shot, though. Hmm, come to think of it, the 360 has some pretty good detail regardless. It's a good thing for me Uncharted was such a great game, though I can't honestly say the same about MGS4.

    So now we have this game that they completely rebuilt FOR the PS3. The review seems a little biased when it makes statements like "the PS3 version still manages to keep up and even maintain an overall smoother performance thanks to the compromises the Sigma team has made. However, in like-for-like situations, the 360 is still a touch smoother." What's that supposed to mean? So, the PS3 is smoother because of compromises? Wait, no, in "like for like situations?" meaning, when you compare the same parts of the game?, the 360's smoother. Why don't they just say, "actually, folks, despite Team Ninja's best efforts, the 360 is still smoother." I think there's a reason the true artists that made this great game (that didn't do the remake) originally chose the xbox platform and there's a reason that game developers have praised the 360 over the ps3 numerous times.

    So if you still want to buy into the BS that Sony's PS3 is, uh, more powerful, then go ahead, I guess. But for those of us that actually appreciate the cutting edge of performance in consoles, I think we should make sure we get our facts straight and see through the propaganda.

    And I fail to see how the Sigma 2 version was concluded to be the better version? Just one more quote, "Perhaps the only area in which 360 comes out better overall in terms of lighting is in the use of bloom - the fiery mountain level in particular benefits." After all the work, the only improvement they can claim is lighting, and yet, admittedly the 360 is still superior in some aspects? Pathetic. It's another watered-down, dumbed-down, dressed-up Ninja Gaiden. Who's surprised? I guess it's a good thing the original crafters deliberately lowered the resolution slightly in order to achieve the gritty, raw gameplay feel that they did, otherwise the PS3 version wouldn't have anything to claim. Though I'm sure Sony and all her supporters would come up with something.

  • BuckEntropy #142 2 years ago

    @perplexia (sort of)

    I'm as tired as anyone of the Sony cabal's unrelenting need to believe their machine(s) have magical powers and can do anything and everything better than all others. But this game shouldn't be a battleground for deciding winners, so it's too bad the article felt the need to. To each their own, but for me the VISCERA is the one real compensation for the change to a more 'arena' style gameplay focus in NG2; take that out, and it becomes a clearly inferior game to the first. But if some prettier shading and the odd extra lighting touch - that you'll never ever notice in the heat of one of the fastest moving action games ever made - float's someone's boat a little higher, I'm happy for them.

    That said, the idea that TA would have ever done this much extra development (or that Tecmo would have let them) even when they could have ported the game intact and running well... is just asinine. PS3 is a very powerful machine, and it does have a few areas in which 360 cannot compete... but it's not "better" in any clear cut manner. If all the Sony faithful would just take what satisfaction they need to from a website calling your version of NG2 "teh best", but don't try to have your cake and eat it to; if you just accept that 360 is powerful in it's own right, you'll save yourselves a lot of meaningless angst in the long run.
    Edited by BuckEntropy at 27/12/09 @ 21:22

  • cjit26 #143 2 years ago

    So that what they call a professional stuff? in this website mm i think this site is so much a xbox fanboy and trusme when i say a fanboy never will be a professional -__-