EA has "maxed out" 360, but not PS3

By Ellie Gibson Published 8 June, 2009

Exec says Xbox is still his favourite, though.

EA exec Patrick Soderlund has said there's still more power to be extracted from the PS3 - while the Xbox 360 is "maxed out".

"Sony has a lot of good games this year. If you go to their booth, there's a very consistent, high quality product line-up and that will help them," he told Official Xbox Magazine, speaking at E3 last week.

"I do think that we'll see developers inside the organisation getting to understand the PS3 better and I think that we're getting more power out of PS3 right now... I think that we've maxed out the 360 but we haven't maxed out the PS3."

Soderlund also had nice things to say about Microsoft though, particularly with regard to their latest techno-baby. "I like the Natal. That's cool. It's an interesting device, so I'm truly impressed by Xbox. It's my personal favourite console," he stated.

"I think Microsoft is on a roll right now. They're doing really well. If I was Sony, I would have a headache, to be honest."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (97) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Dizzy #1 3 years ago

    ROFL.

    NOBODY can max out the PS3.... it would kill you and melt your brain.

  • Wastelander #2 3 years ago

    OMG teh µn74pp3Ð p073n714£!

  • patch #3 3 years ago

    Is it worth me putting on some popcorn for this one?

  • WiseGuy #4 3 years ago

    panasonic 3D0

  • Widge #5 3 years ago

    In other news: my BLURAY POWER Tshirt is getting delivered today along with my TEH CELL baseball cap.

  • Darren #6 3 years ago

    The PS3 is notoriously difficult to code for compared with the Xbox 360 so it's no surprise to hear that the latter has been maxed out really.

  • AphoticCosmos #7 3 years ago

    *cue dramatic music*

  • Teamallstar #8 3 years ago

    Who cares...

  • Wastelander #9 3 years ago

    Wait a second....

    What's going on here?
    WHO IS THE PRESIDENT!?

  • patch #10 3 years ago

    /puts on popcorn

  • homerramone #11 3 years ago

    Cool - based on how many times this was said about the ps2 theres about another dozen 'maxing outs' to go :-)

  • Darren #12 3 years ago

    @squarejawhero - Hey, hey... the PS3 isn't the only platform with sub-720p and AA-free games you know. Have you seen gameplay footage from Halo 3 ODST yet? ;)

    Also a lot of recent games like Bionic Commando still don't run at 720p on either platform, the reason being that neither have the memory or graphical grunt to deliver 720p with 2X AA for all the games, not if the developers want to make their games look as-so-pretty as possible for the screenshots on the back of the game box.

    And I won't even mention screen tearing... well actually I will... it's even worst on the 360. Resident Evil 5, 50 Cent Blood on the Sand and Bionic Commando are three examples of recent multiformat games that run tear-free on the PS3 but not the Xbox 360.

  • Dizzy #13 3 years ago

    "@squarejawhero - Hey, hey... the PS3 isn't the only platform with sub-720p and AA-free games you know. Have you seen gameplay footage from Halo 3 ODST yet? ;) "

    Wait... isn't the PS3 the one that loses all the face offs? You got me confused now. It is actually the best platform? Amazing!

  • matrim83 #14 3 years ago

    I am guessing the ODST/KZ2 troll attempt didnt get enough hits so now we gotta do this. :p

  • patch #15 3 years ago

    @Dizzy or does the PS3 lose the face-offs 'cause most games are coded on the xbox and what the ps3 gets is effectively a port?

    /munches more popcorn

  • Wastelander #16 3 years ago

    Both of them struggle to render over 720p at 30fps, it's like watching a fight between cripples.

    If you want the best graphics, buy a PC like all the REAL MEN.

  • Darren #17 3 years ago

    @Dizzy - I never said it was the best platform, I just pointed out three examples where the PS3 has graphical superiority over the 360 version. Of course, if you think screen tearing is an acceptable compromise in games for the sake of prettier effects then you can ignore my comment. :p

    The main gist of my post however was to point out that it isn't only the PS3 that runs sub-720p games. The truth is that there are as many sub-720p games on the Xbox 360 as there are the PS3 and neither platform can do AA for every game either, although the PS3 is admittedly weaker in this area. The forthcoming Modern Warfare 2 is likely still running at 640p for example, just as the previous three Call of Duty games have on the current gen hardware.

  • Darren #18 3 years ago

    @Wastelander - "Both of them struggle to render over 720p at 30fps, it's like watching a fight between cripples.

    If you want the best graphics, buy a PC like all the REAL MEN."

    +1

    I wish I'd thought to write that! :D

  • jiveguy #19 3 years ago

    Didn't someone max out the PS3 last week? Are EA crap or liars?

  • mcbi4kh2 #20 3 years ago

    buy a PC like all the REAL MEN.
    @Wastelander
    pff, <a href="http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/funny/nintendo-q ueen.jpg">real MEN buy Nintendo.<a>
    Edited by 1 at 08/06/09 @ 09:51

  • asharkman #21 3 years ago

    i am the president!

  • Toothball #22 3 years ago

    I heard they maxed out what they can do with the Wii. Pity really, as now they won't be able to make any more games ever. Oh, wait...

  • Dizzy #23 3 years ago

    "The main gist of my post however was to point out that it isn't only the PS3 that runs sub-720p games."

    Ha ok.. indeed... both HD consoles are actually not powerful enough to do proper HD. Next gen will hopefully solve that.

  • systems #24 3 years ago

    @Wastelander - you're absolutely right. None of the three "current gen" consoles can do even 720P@30fps without compromises. I laughed out loud reading your comment (I refuse to write LOL - doh!).

    Back to the topic, the 360 probably is maxed out. It's a very simple dual-core PC (with a dedicated extra core for the dashboard and all that). People have been programming for PCs for years, they know what it can do and how to do it. It doesn't mean there won't be any good stuff coming out for it, just that all the hardware is being used to the max. Which is what we want isn't it? I don't want a 20% idle console sitting around.

    The PS3 certainly has legs though and I can well imagine it'll take another couple of years to work out how to use it efficiently.

  • Olemak #25 3 years ago

    But - if the Xbox is maxed out, but is still technically unable to output games at full 1080 HD at 30 fps with decent antialiasing - which would, to me, sound like the spec for a "HD console"... then maybe a new Xbox is imminent. Well.... by 2012, at least? By then I bet a lot of TV's will be full HD, at least in the living rooms of people in the market for games consoles anyway.

    Or maybe Nintendo will be the first real HD console after all, with the WiiII :)

  • #26 3 years ago

    Welcome to last weeks news Lategamer.

    I think they intentionally save these items up.

  • Tomo #27 3 years ago

    Classic baiting article ;]

  • Stuz359 #28 3 years ago

    How irrelevant. All I care about is how the game plays. Nice graphics are a bonus.

  • GamesConnoisseur #29 3 years ago

    PS3 still have great games coming out and which would probably pushes closer toward the max ceiling, but so far in the long months to date X360 had been overall the better console with less vasline blurring, jaggings, frame rates issue and such.

    Fairs enough re screen tearings, sure its a bloody awful on anything OTHER than native 720p, and that song been sung to death and still others seem to keep X360 at the 1080p resolution? Sure it will do some games fine but not all and SWITCH to 720p when tearings occurs.... also PS3 is not immune to screen tearings anyway!

    Current PC standards are the uber powerful gaming machine that dumps on both consoles from a great height, however still both consoles are worth having and I put PC in bottom of my gaming pile just cos its too ruddy awkward to play on compared to lazy sod's friendly PS3, X360 and Wii!

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #30 3 years ago

    "OMG teh µn74pp3Ð p073n714£! "

    LOL!

  • davisorle #31 3 years ago

    What he stated in the interview can simply mean that its the reason why mostly all the games in both consoles loo better in the 360. Cause the PS3 took ( as he said in his own words but mostly the same ones ) now developers are starting to understand the PS3. And yay for Natal. lol i feel like a fucking kid when it comes to it. Im such a sucker for new techstuff and if it wasnt for that i wouldnt have been amazed by anything for this year. THAT did it ^^ and apparently EA is also going to work on the device like omstly all of them capable to do so. How cool is that!?

    About the headache.. Sony was freaking born with migranes like i almost was. There is no hope for them to get their shit straight.. lol

  • M_of_the_sys #32 3 years ago

    About the headache.. Sony was freaking born with migranes like i almost was. There is no hope for them to get their shit straight.. lol

    Deciphering your entire post gave me a headache...

  • phycus #33 3 years ago

    ^^^ +1

  • Farzlepot #34 3 years ago

    This entire article, to me, read like the EA president was saying, "oooh, shiny things!"

  • BadBoyBonner #35 3 years ago

    Darren

    Recent Call of Duty games ran at 600p not 640p if memory serves me right (just goggled indeed it was 600p) - which is even worse obviously, but does show the benefit of cranking antialaising up and screen res down - unlike Halo 3 - which just looks a mess on anything that isn't CRT based and smaller than 26" - which runs at 640p that you mentioned with no antialaising - supposedly due to the lighting engine - but the double exposure HDR rendering seems to compromise all other graphical effects and framerate.

    I'd guess Bungie were pulling a fast one - taking ages to develop Halo 3 while milking the MS cash cow to fund new engine development - at least I hope they were as they have gone from technical masters to also rans in a single generation

    To watch the 360 looking like it's maxed out I'd offer Just Cause 2 http://www.shackv ideo.com/?id=14522 unless of course the icons on screen are actually from a PC with a 360 pad connected.

    Shows Bionic Commando and Grin what a grappling hook and decent GFX should look & play like.

  • IneptPercy #36 3 years ago

    Does this mean that when they finally max the PS3 the games will look as good as the 360?

    All these people who argue the PS3 has the most power? why didn't you all buy xbox's last generation? that had the most power but you didn't all buy one?

  • El-Dev #37 3 years ago

    "Does this mean that when they finally max the PS3 the games will look as good as the 360?"

    It appears you may have missed a few things on EG.

    I suggest you go to the Digital Foundry page then correct your comment.

  • AphoticCosmos #38 3 years ago

    +1 to what Wastelander said

    Crysis 2 is already "maxing out the PS3", my PC isn't maxed out when running the original, highly unoptimised Crysis, and it runs it at 1080p on very-high mix with the Real Lifesis mod [adds a liberally applied coat of Pretty Juice] @ 30fps. It's amusing watching the console crowd running around defending their ridiculously outdated hardware . . .

  • Dizzy #39 3 years ago

    "It's amusing watching the console crowd running around defending their ridiculously outdated hardware . . . "

    Most of that "console crowd" also have a PC. Ofc PCs are more powerful... everybody knows that and it is besides the question.

  • AphoticCosmos #40 3 years ago

    "ps PC gaming is for paedos*"

    Must be pretty bad paedos then - most of the kids are on Xbox LIVE.

  • Dizzy #41 3 years ago

    "ps PC gaming is for paedos*"

    I have no idea who originally posted this but I am glad he is on ignore.

  • AphoticCosmos #42 3 years ago

    @ Dizzy

    It's N@

    I don't blame you for putting him on ignore, I just keep him around for lulz.

  • Alkeno #43 3 years ago

    I´m trully beginning to understand Sony's policy. I was so blind... All the "PS3 ir hard to code" is something they made up to their interest!!! And people are buying it, so that they hope their system will show the untapped sometime in the future...

    Everybody seems to believe that Xbox360 has an architecture "just like any PC, so its easy to code for". Playstation 3 is just pure genious, a futuristic architecture that just a few selected NASA scientists can code for. Bullshit. Both 360 and PS3 have an pretty standard architecture, not dissimilar to any PC. As a matter of fact, 360 has some unique solutions that made it even more different to a PC than the PS3.

    XBOX360:

    - CPU being a a dual threaded, triple core Power PC at 3,2 GHz.
    - GPU being used as northbridge (unified memory architecture, the CPU is connected to the ram through the GPU).
    - GPU with 10MB ultra-fast ram embedded (a brilliant design desition that some developers are using plain wrong).
    - GPU using an unified shader arquitecture (instead of separate vertex and pixel shaders).
    - RAM is shared between CPU and GPU.


    The CPU, it should be quite easy to program for provided al PC's nowadays have dual and quad-core solutions. It's general purpose processor and quite a beast (6 threads @ 3,2GHz). Makes a good decition for a gaming CPU.

    Most innovations on the XBox360 come from system architecture (unified memory architecture) and GPU (ATI did a great job but then blew it with the heat calculations that caused mod RRoDs). I believe most developers just don't use the 10MB embedded ram properly, the try to use it as framebuffer (the easy choice) and that causes lots games running at sub-HD resolutions.

    Sharing the RAM is great news as allows developers great flexibility (they can use more than 256MB if they want for graphics).



    PS3:

    - CPU -Cell- can be divided in two parts:
    * General purpose CPU being a a dual threaded Power PC at 3,2 GHz.
    * Specific modules (should be 8 of them, but only 7 are activated).
    - GPU is pretty basic Gforce7000 (Sony and NVidia took the easy way here).
    - RAM is 256MB for CPU and 256MB for GPU.


    The Cell CPU is a great design for workstations and supercomputers, but a weird desition for a gaming platform. Its basic general-purpose processing power is crap (once core, 2 threads @ 3,2 GHz, just 1/3 of the Xbox360). This is where problems begin because games have a lot of branching code (if playes does this, stop whatever being processed and do that) that have to be dealt with in the general-purpose CPU. The untapped potential (and the nightmare for developers -Valve doesn't even bother-) comes from having to split the code not into 2/4 general-purpose processors (standard PC) or 3 general-purpose processors (360) but into 1 general-purpose processor and 7 math co-processors.

    GPU on the PS3 is industry-standard and is piece of cake to program for. RAM is less flexible, but still there is enough for doing good games with small compromises.



    CONCLUSION:

    The bottom line is that PS3 has a complex CPU, but games are made of RAM and GPU. And Xbox360 have a lot of innovations on those areas. So, I believe XBox360 has the untapped potential, because developers are not taking full advantages of the specifics of the system.

    If a game was to be an advanced simulation PS3 would destroy XBox360 (Cell and maths take along very well), but games are not simulations of waves hitting some rocks, so the much simpler CPU on the 360 is a better and cheaper choice.



    ANNEX: SO WHY ON HELL DOES KILLZONE2 ONW EVERY GAME ON XBOX360:

    That is an easy question. Because it was developed from the ground up to be the best looking game that the PS3 can develop. Everything on that game (art direction, level design, 3D engine, etc.) was designed to max out PS3's strenghts and minimize its weaknesses. There is another factor, with is that the game is first party from Sony and god knows how many millions were budgeted on its 4 years development. Gran Turismo 5 is a similar case of a game developed FOR the system with loads of budget and time.

    Microsoft just can't do that. They don't have ingame studios so big and tech oriented. RARE? Forget them. Lionhead? No, no, no. Ensemble? RIP. Bungie? They just love their AI too much to bother in doing realistic graphics.

    So they had to hire Epic to make them good looking exclusive games. But still, Epic is no first party, and they are using a multiplatform engine (Unreal Engine anyone?) so the game looks good but is't not Killzone2. Just compare this facts:
    - KZ2: First party, 4 years development in exclusive, full custom game engine, no budget limit (probably).
    - GoW2: Epic was hired, 2 years of development shared with Unreal Tournament 2009 and others, multiformat game engine, budget limit for sure.


    This is the longest post I've ever made and I'm pretty sure nobody will read. And the will answer "Halol" and "Thez Cell rulez". Crap.

  • dr_faulk #44 3 years ago

    @ Alkeno

    I read it, and you make some good points. Ultimately, the fatc that games are developed ground-up for the system is the biggest contribution to a game looking great. Uncharted is another wonderful example of that.

  • Darren #45 3 years ago

    I believe that the PS3 being harder to code for means that developers are being a lot more creative with the hardware to get the games looking good. The machine's graphics hardware is based around a lowly GeForce 7800 GTX derivative, a dated PC graphics card, but coupled with the Cell processor, the PS3 is capable of churning out some remarkable looking games such as Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 and God of War III. AA is really it's only weak area but developers are finding ways to work around it. It also has some strengths over the 360 such as high dynamic range (HDR) lighting which is generally better on the PS3.

  • phycus #46 3 years ago

    @Alkeno - "GoW2: Epic was hired, 2 years of development shared with Unreal Tournament 2009 and others, multiformat game engine, budget limit for sure. "

    Not sure that argument point stands up to be fair - Epic has been developing the Unreal Engine which GOW 1 & 2 use (version 3) since 1998, so given that the xbox 360 is practically a pc console means Epic has had 10 years to refine and develop a great 3d game engine.





  • Sunyavadin #47 3 years ago

    He discounted any value in anything he has to say buy finding MS' project Nothing-at-all impressive.

  • Redeye #48 3 years ago

    Yes, Mr. EA fuckwit, I'm really sure you've 'maxed out' a console and know absolutely everything there is to know about pushing the hardware to its absolute limits.

    When there are people still discovering how to pull off previously-inconceivable things on the Amiga.

    Now, please have this frying pan to the face and kindly do one.

    EDIT: Spolling mistooks.
    Edited by 1 at 08/06/09 @ 14:10

  • Machiavellian #49 3 years ago

    When you hear someone say they have maxed out a particular hardware, does that mean they have maxed out the hardware to the ability of their programmers. One developer skill is definitely different from another and being able to max a particular hardware could only mean that the codes at EA has reached their ability.

    The funny thing would be is if we see this through other devs. In other words, EA would have a game max to their best potential but then another developer will leap frog their accomplishment thus raising the ceiling.

  • El-Dev #50 3 years ago

    As impressive as Alkenos tech analysis is I find it hard to see it as objective piece of writing and give no credit to it.

  • Sunyavadin #51 3 years ago

    I'm still amused at how they'll say they've "maxed out" a console's abilities, then every single game they release over the next few years will "push new limits" of the console or "Achieve even more with the hardware" or "Finally exploit the FULL power" of it...

  • Machiavellian #52 3 years ago

    Giving Alkeno his due, this is something that I have stated many times. The power of the PS3 is not it's hardware but the inhouse first and second party developers that Sony has. This is the reason you see games like uncharted, Killzone2 etc that are graphically better than what you have on the 360 purely because those developers are intimate with Sony hardware and are know to push the hardware to it's limit. I stated this before but will again, how many developers you know that can spend 3 years on the engine tech for a game. 3 years on the engine alone is huge and this is the advantage that Sony has. MS doesn't put that kind of money into the Graphical power of their console and they do not have a first party developer that reaches for that goal either.

    Another thing that is evident is that most developers do not go beyond their knowledge of creating PC games and the PC architecture. Why should they when they can easily get damn good performance from their current knowledge base. With the 360, they have not needed to go beyond their current comfort zone. They do not need to go beyond the toolsets given to them by MS because those tools work great. They also have not needed to extract every scrap of power from the 360 because what it does now is good enough.

    The strength of the PS3 is the fact that it's architecture forces developers to finds it strengths and utilize it to the utmost. You only have to look at the face offs to understand when give money, time and talent, a lot of things can be accomplished with the PS3 but you need all of those in order to get steller results from the hardware. Developers are forced to do this if they want a half decent PS3 game and this is what you see from First Party PS3 developers.

  • patch #53 3 years ago

    @Alkeno: I may be wrong, but I thought the idea with the Cell was that you can use the SPEs in various configurations to do the majority of the processing work, with the PPE acting as a "controller" for the SPEs. I'm guessing the "one core, two threads" doesn't count the 7 SPEs each running at 3.2Ghz, all being controlled by a 3.2Ghz PPE.

  • septimus #54 3 years ago

    Was fun reading the whiney 360 fanboy comments. "Don't insult my precious!!!!". Pathetic.

    It's a good console, so what if it technically reaching its max potential? PS3 may get some better looking games (certainly better playing at the moment, my 360 is a little underused right now), but it doesn't stop them being fun.

    I'm sure EG's utterly unbiased face-offs will prove otherwise though.

  • Spekingur #55 3 years ago

    Does he mean 'maxed out' through coding? Because if so EA needs new progammers.
    Or does he mean 'maxed out' potential customers? As in, having reached their own critical mass of the install base on X360?

  • Calgon #56 3 years ago

    Meh so the same people who were complainin that some of the leading devs were telling us they maxed outthe PS3 with the crysis 2 engine are now getting jollies over an Executives comments... someone who never touches the hardware and judging by his Developer Sheet hasnt done a whole lot which puts him in a position to tell everyone whos maxed out what.

    Regardless he never even said how much? Maybe they will start releasing PS3 versions that can match the 360 framerates then or maybe he's heard some Sony hype and hasnt really talked to anyone who actually knows what they are talking that he works with, if not Im sure he'll get a few words spoken to him about sticking to what you know in interviews.

    Who did he mean by "we" anyway? EA? Maybe EA dont plan on getting more out of the 360 because performance is good enough, one things for sure though he will look pretty stupid if he tries to speak for anyone but his own teams because maybe his team cant do any better but I'd bet money on 360 matching anything PS3 if they approach the 360 in the same way(ie actually spending time "untapping the potential"*haha, I hate that bullshit term* of 360 too because they havent done much of that, theyve not really needed to up to this point).


    @Spekingur - Yeah it could be market penetration term, it was a rediculously vague statement and after all he doesnt have any place talking about anything technical in his position so you might be right.

  • Calgon #57 3 years ago

    @ Alkeno I think theres a way to go before they can say they've maxed out the CPU too, multi-threading in general isnt something game developers have mastered yet(if its possible) add to that IBMs VMX128(one of the key differences between the 360 cores and the PS3 PPE core which is based on the standard VMX) which was new around the time and was customized further for 360/gaming and we have; 6 hardware threads that could be used more efficiently/optimally and more importantly each of these hardware threads has 128 VMX128 registers that have similar strengths to CELLs SPUs(IBMs doing and before you say it VMX was around way before CELL was ever conceived they just added some VMX flavour to the SPUs and without that I dread to think of how much worse CELL would be) and these have had far less dev attention, partly because perhaps MS hasnt pushed devs to put the work in where as Sony has practicallly tried to force devs to do it.

    Mr .me Still no mention of a buyable intel chip that outperforms the cell as yet

    Oh dear... do you know the first thing about processing power or were you being sarcastic? I sincerely hope you arent just comparing Gflops, for a start the type of operations done in that area by the SPUs can be done on GPUs and they can utterly trounce CELL in that area. For anything else you'd like to mention any of Intels modern chips would embaress CELL on performance. All in all CELL hasnt caught on, not in its current form and theres been next to no interest in it outside of Sony... that should tell you it all. I fully expect CELL to fizzle out as IBM, Intel and AMD are all capable of coming up with something better even on price.

    You can build a PC for less than the price than the PS3 that easily out performs it too. I really dont know what you were thinking.
    Edited by 5 at 08/06/09 @ 17:20

  • Darren #58 3 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner - "To watch the 360 looking like it's maxed out I'd offer Just Cause 2 http://www.shackv ideo.com/?id=14522 unless of course the icons on screen are actually from a PC with a 360 pad connected."

    Yes that game does look impressive, certainly it surprised me when I saw gameplay footage of it running at E3 because I thought the first game was awful from the demo. Pretty but awful.

    "Shows Bionic Commando and Grin what a grappling hook and decent GFX should look & play like."

    Still sub-720p though and better, oddly, on the PS3 where it has no tearing whatsoever (according to Digital Foundry who posted screenshot comparisons). The 360 version has ambient occlusion lighting but it all honestly, and from my experiences with this on my new PC, it's a near useless effect as it eats up performance and is barely noticeable IMO.

  • Machiavellian #59 3 years ago

    @Darren
    I am surprise you bring up tearing on the 360 because if I remember correctly most face off have the 360 tearing the most even in 1st party games like Uncharted that had quite a bit of teaming.

  • ronuds #60 3 years ago

    OMG, we're still talking about Halo 3 screen tearing? LOL!!!

    Anyhow, is someone from EA really the authority on which console is maxed and which isn't? I doubt EA would know one way or the other.

  • Ryze #61 3 years ago

    @Alkeno

    Excellent stuff. Bravo.

    I can't wait to see the best of both consoles over the next 3 years, as there's no way I'm buying a next gen console before 2013 unless it does something amazing on top of the most amazing games.

    I need to travel more.

    EDIT: OMG Tearing!!

    :D
    Edited by 1 at 08/06/09 @ 18:30

  • TRUTH #62 3 years ago

    Uncharted and Killzone are not superior to anything already out there as is MGS 4. These PS3 exclusives don't surpass any game in any way on 360.

    Killzone is very liner...it's AI is actually very scripted & usually all they do is hide and duck.shoot around corners/boxes. They respawn out of sight and don't use the environments as freely and openly with freedom of non scripted fighting as Halo 3's battles: do they run in cowardliness if there leader dies, do they move freely around - jump in/out of vehicles, change weapons, miss throw explosives, work in groups and then separate and individually change tactic - in Killzone 2 they hardly did half the stuff the Ai did in Halo. KZ 2 was extremely liner compared to Halo 3, hardly had more the 4 different characters to battle with, the vehicle section was just a liner route and pathetic compared to open world and choice of vehicles in Halo; which also handled alot better. Also KZ 2 also had many set pieces in when reaching certain points on the game that trigger them on off in most levels - not realtime - if you stand back and not reach that point, the game is just following a routine Where exactly in the game (gameplay not cutscenes) does KZ 2 surpass any games already out there esp compared to Gow 2(which had better textures, more explosions, bigger - larger characters etc etc, CoD 4 etc ?...Halo 3 is now 3yrs old and still being played and continue to sell. It may not look as grand as KZ 2, but underneath the hood Halo is throwing a lot more then KZ 2 can imagine. Played KZ 2 online too, this is the only reason I've kept it - single player was so seen all before fps predictable.

    Uncharted was very liner and though colorful it did not surpass anything on 360 in graphical power - where exactly is this great piece of graphical power in the game?...It's all nice and that, but nothing special!....Assassins Creed is still probably the best example of graphical power in adventure games. Alot larger, better detailed then Uncharted, also better animation too. Though the gameplay became rather repetitive it gave a better graphical experience then Uncharted in many areas (though Uncharted played better - not AAA title though as PS3 fans keep going on about!) - Oh! didn't the 360 version look & run smoother with more detail/textures then the PS3 version - YES IT DID!...Have a look at Assassins Creed 2 and look how the graphics have become even more advanced/detailed.

    Having both consoles I do personally believe taking almost 4yrs to make KZ (1st showed as a PS3 demo in 2005) with alot of support/money from Sony to produce a sub standard game that is very liner, and fairly short and call this the best looking game ever is in fact total bull!...GoW 2, Crysis, Cod 4, Dead Space..etc all look as good or better (Crysis for sure) then KZ 2 (4yrs to make) - but these games also do alot more onscreen too esp GoW 2 and Crysis!...ad didin't take 4yrs to make!

    Virtua Fighter 5, Virtua Tennis on 360 do run in 1080p.
    Edited by 4 at 08/06/09 @ 22:51

  • onyxbox #63 3 years ago

    ^^
    oh dear.

  • Rash' #64 3 years ago

    Machiavellian, your last post is incredibly misleading and frankly not true. the implication that investing large scale time and resources on development is the exclusive preserve of Sony is the latest bs to emerge from those that refute the abilities of Sony platform. it has been well documented that as gaming advances towards multi-core development the time and resources by publishers will multiply considerably to take advantage of the power at the disposal of developers. to suggest that only Sony have the means to do that (and thus suggesting that to be the reason PS3 is pushing the graphical barriers ahead of 360) is frankly bs! do you honestly believe the tech behind Gears was made with limited resources and time? how long has Alan Wake been in development now? i've got nothing against 360, Gears, Alan Wake or yourself, but i become tired of people's stubborn ignorance of the obvious, namely that when developed to it's strengths (as is true of any hardware) the PS3 can push technical boundaries...

  • Rash' #65 3 years ago

    the work of those pushing the system deserves higher praise than an apologetic excuse.

    /rant over

  • IneptPercy #66 3 years ago

    The problem is that nobody is pushing the 360 as hard due to making PC/360 games. Basically make it run on a PC then port to 360 which works great but doesn't really use the features of the 360 fully.

    Its great that any consoles can come up with such great looking games, and as with all competition it brings out the best. Do you think Sony would have invested so heavily in killzone if it didn't need some 'killer apps' to try and close the gap on the 360. Likewise I hope it has got some people at microsoft thinking 'maybe we need to do more'.

    Interestingly PC hardware never gets 'maxed', rather than optimise just make them buy new hardware!

  • mudasira #67 3 years ago

    Wow, everyone made some interesting comments. Being a programmer on a development team that has released games on 360 and PS3, I can give you some insight to what we found:

    PS3 is a very very good number cruncher. If its simulation of millions of particles to any simulations that require tons of math operations it can handle very well. GPU wise I believe the PS3 has more vertex and pixel shaders than the 360.
    360 GPU can handle more complex kinds of operations and in some cases better than a PS3. 360 has better Data Transfer bandwidth to the GPU than the PS3 and thats the main reason why most PS3 graphics are not as rich as the 360.
    Who ever designed the 360 was thinking of it as a gaming console while the architecture of the PS3 is better suited for supercomputer type programs such weather or physics.
    To simplify it even more: PS3 will break a wall using 50 sledgehammers, 360 will break the wall using an explosive.
    If the world has less textures, less colours than the PS3 can draw more stuff, thats the only major upperhand PS3 has in graphics department over the 360.

    Developing a nice looking game is not a matter of how many polys, effects, characters or textures you have, its about having the artist, designer and programmer all working well together. If one of them doesnt do a good job then it doesnt matter how good an engine or console is.
    Edited by 1 at 08/06/09 @ 21:54

  • Calgon #68 3 years ago

    What heck is Rash waffling on about... its well known that Sony are the ones that have spent the most time and money developing their first party software and what the fuck is this attitude that everyone else can afford to do this too? Stop talking bullshit and come back to the real world, the PS3 is just a console and its not the most powerfull... its not pushing boundaries. All of that will be done on the PC as always.

    He probably has me on ignore because Ive shown him to be an ill informed Sony lover, he's enthusiatic but he cannot seperate the hype from fact, if thats the way he prefers it so be it but he seems to be getting too personal about it... 3 years of preaching, years of Sony and the others Sony bullied into investing millions to get decent performance out of the PS3. He doesnt know the first thing about the 360 yet he feels he has the right to say whether 360 has more to give or not... we'll see ;)
    Edited by 1 at 08/06/09 @ 22:00

  • Rash' #69 3 years ago

    IneptPercy, i just gets better! not content with Sony's greater investment, now it's devs aren't pushing the 360 enough. sorry, man. we've had some interesting discussions in the past but that just sounds like more apologetic excuses (i.e. bs). why is it so hard for people on this site to acknowledge the achievements of Sony's console?

  • Calgon #70 3 years ago

    mudasira I take it you're a 3d artist or something because Xenos has the potential to whoop RSX on vertex operations(of course that would be in situations where they dont need as many ALUs for pixel operations) and Ive already heard from devs telling us that they have more pixel and vertex to work with in real world situations(ie the effeciency of the hardware itself and also adding in the texture layers that are necessary to look even half decent by todays standards which have different penalties on both platforms).
    Edited by 2 at 08/06/09 @ 22:05

  • Rash' #71 3 years ago

    "Developing a nice looking game is not a matter of how many polys, effects, characters or textures you have, its about having the artist, designer and programmer all working well together. If one of them doesnt do a good job then it doesnt matter how good an engine or console is."

    I bow in respect. :)

  • mudasira #72 3 years ago

    Thanks Rash, appreciate it.
    Calgon, I am a game programmer (but you were pretty close) I believe you are correct. Thanks to the uniform format of pixel and vertex shaders, yes you can play with more shaders on 360 easily. Regarding the vertex operations I ll have to ask the engine coder (he writes the code that talks to the hardware), I dont want to mislead. ATI did a fantastic job with the GPU. The guys from IBM confirmed it as well. I never understood why PS3 didnt go with ATI as well. Maybe because ATI cards on the market were beaten by Nvidia at the time but apparently ATI's experience with consoles really helped plus the 10mb on the GPU was a very good decision.
    Edited by 1 at 08/06/09 @ 22:14

  • Calgon #73 3 years ago

    mudasira yep no disrespect meant by that, btw I have noticed that this is all tricky business the top devs dont seem to agree on eveything is one of the first things you notice on closer inspection, alot of it is still opinion even from the top devs themselves which is why alot of them arent too keen on saying too much when they are pushed for a soundbite in interviews(obviously the Sony exclusive devs say things that give the most positive reactions from their fans "unlimited untapped potential, futures bright, it will never end, if you thought that was good stick around we just scratched the surface" none of them seem to spot the pattern)... they form their opinions on their own results as anyone should, everything is theoretically untill proven true or otherwise ect.

    In the end I think they are both as capable of impressing as the other personally perhaps the 360 getting the most significant advantages as a complete package(the overall design) but but I doubt we'll see any gain a significant area over the other unless one platform holder is content in sitting back and saving for next gen. I really do hope MS get back behind 1st party 360 stuff with Sony perhaps slightly ahead in that area, I sincerely beleive that the machine is every bit as capable of anything you are likely to see the PS3 do on screen... well I still perhaps beleive that maybe CELL might still show its strength in physics because that actually makes sense rather than graphics but even then I doubt the advantage there would be significant at the rate things have gone.(it doesnt look like it has any advantage there so far so thats not good sign at all this late in the game)
    Edited by 2 at 08/06/09 @ 22:54

  • mudasira #74 3 years ago

    Non taken Calgon. Performance is all about being a packing expert. You have a box and you can fill it with books, albums, cards, toothbrush, etc. The less gaps you have in the box the more efficiently you have used it. I believe that the 360 and PS3 have a lot of space left. I consider the 360 to be a square box where the PS3 is a rectangular box.

    The point I wanted to make was the EA exec saying they have maxed out the 360 is kind of hard to swallow. I would only believe it if the 3rd iteration of games on this generation of consoles were on the market e.g Assasin's creed 3.

    Developers try to be neutral because they want to have a good relationship with the consolemakers. But when my cousin asked me which console to get I told him 360 because the 2nd hand games are cheaper, if you can get Assasin's creed and Halo 3 for a fiver now thats value for money. My cousin is in University so its the best deal for him.
    Edited by 1 at 08/06/09 @ 23:16

  • Alkeno #75 3 years ago

    This has become a great post, almost troll-free and full of good exposition! I've learnt a lot and I have the chance to force myself to write in English (can't let it get rusty, use it or lose it :-)

    Many liked my point of view, others didn't give much credit to my words (I wouldn't have either!). It's true that I'm no expert in the subject and speack mostly from things I've read elsewhere. Sadly my knowledge isn't as good as I wish it should to continue... I'm an engineer with solid knowledge of electronics and programming, but I have no real experience in console hardware or game programming, so most of my opinions come from what I have read on the internet (no need to say most sites on the internet are rubbish and heavily biased... although Ars Technica and Beyond3D are very good reads, the Wikipedia is a quite impressive learning tool as well).

    Anyway, I own a 360 so it's difficult for me to be unbiased. I just like Microsoft's beast, it's the first console I've bought since the... you know... that console... the... Sega Saturn. When Playstation ruled, I was a happy PC player. But I got tired of upgrading, changing resolutions and lowering the draw distance. Don't kill me, I'm just that lazy :-D

  • JamieR #76 3 years ago

    I have kill zone 2 and i thought the graphics was ugly the screen looked really dotty and in terms of sizes nothing looked right the characters looked really short i think resistance 2 looked betterbut kill zone 2 was awesome though i just didn't see much in the graphics

  • Machiavellian #77 3 years ago

    @Rash'
    I will state that my last post can be misleading but the concept I wanted to make is that the two top games that is herald as show pieces on the PS3 is uncharted(2 more than one IMHO) and Killzone2 had a long development time spent on the games engine which a lot of developers have not had the luxury or given the same amount of time. What I am stating is that this was a goal and a push by Sony and they have reaped the benefits but you can clearly see this is not a goal or benefit that MS has pursued.

    Think about it Rash, when the PS3 was announced, it was suppose to trounce the 360. Sony made many points on how their tech was totally superior to what was inside of the 360. Are you telling me that Sony has not put all the stops with their 1st party developers to make real those statements. Why has Sony 1st party devs been able to do in one game where 3rd party devs have not done in 2 or 3. I am sure it's not lazy devs as most PS3 fanboys would like to state. Look at the difference between 3rd party and 1st party games. You know those games did not have the time needed, resources etc to produce the kinds of results Sony 1st party have accomplish.

    How many times have we heard that the PS3 is difficult and the 360 is easy. Are you stating that the same amount of time to produce a 360 game and get good results is the same on the PS3. Are you stating that Devs will trying to fully get the power from the 360 when they can easily get Good enough results from their current experience.

    You mention Epic's engine and you actually prove my point. Have you forgotten the problems Epic had with the PS3 architecture compared to the 360. Epic is an engine company just like Id and look at the results they were able o accomplish with GOW even though their time was split with the PS3 and PC. The engine was definitely not built from the ground up to exploit the 360. Just think what could be accomplish if Epic actually did build from the ground up an engine for the 360. As for Alan Wake, it is developed as a PC game first and ported to the 360.

    The other point I wanted to make is that its not the PS3 hardware that is the champion but instead the developers themselves. What the 360 lack more than anything is the First Party Devs that Sony has cultivated over the years and this is what shows the most not nessarrly the hardware strengths or limitations.

    I am not denying that the PS3 has a lot of growth but you seem to be dismissing the 360 while you champion the PS3. You are actually doing the same thing you just said that you hate.

  • IneptPercy #78 3 years ago

    Hey Mr Rash long time no speak.

    I was actually trying to say that what has been done on the PS3 is amazing for such limited hardware, overall I don't think any console is much better than the other. Just trying to make the point I think the 360 still has a few tricks but I don't think anybody is investing enough to make it happen, where the PS3 had to make it happen to try and close the gap.

    I really do hope that someone does start pushing the 360 more, competition is always a good thing and I would hate to see ay console run away with it.

    As you will know I am more a PC gamer, I have no particular bios to any console as a decent spec PC makes them both look poor and thats the route I have taken.

    It seems you have more than a healthly debate to deal with elsewhere, have fun.

  • Calgon #79 3 years ago

    Mr.Me there is nothing in that paper that was worth in posting it to me... Wanker.. please leave discussion like this to people who have a clue.

    That paper looks to be a fluff peice from 06 on a specific task, vector math and Ray Tracing is not the litmus test for CPU power... one of the reasons comsumer level CPUs havent concentrated here is because GPUs getting more robust and already have GFLOPs(this is THE main reason people get confused about how powerful CELL is... theres much more to it than that is all that can be said to these people) figures way above that of CELL so as component of a gaming system they dont to( the GFLOPs figures of the PS3s CELLS are pretty much directly comparable to that in a GPU, I already suggested that but here you go: Interactive Real Time Ray Tracing On GPUs)... try comparing GFLOPs of the latest GPU to your little CELL. How about comparing bus bandwidths? There is a misconception about CELLs Element Interconnect Bus is even worth comparing to other modern CPUs its actually one of the limitations, they'd have been better off going with something more conventional so they could have had enough bandwidth to even consider using it as a GPU(as it stands though it would be a waste and Sony knew it) the reason for it was chip space, it was a trade off. Also the way Intel are heading they will integrate GPU technology into their chips which could make things even more interesting.

    You dont have clue by the looks of it the SPUs arent all that versitile they excel in vector math yes... they essentially toshiba DSPs with IBMs VMX flavour added to it(among other things but this was most important). 360s IBM CPU has its own version of VMX128 which funnily enough share alot of simularities to CELL... they excell at vector math, most effective with heavy parallelisation. They do have their limitations too, you seem to not be able to seperate the hype from fact like so many other PS3 enthusiast, repeating white papers and fluff piece, tests in controlled conditions by bodies probably paid by the vendor(Sony) is often the case or they'd never have let them release it.

    Really just take a look at around, everything was heading multi-core way before CELL was conceived, CELL its self hasnt been the success Sony hoped for(it doesnt look like IBM is about to drop the Power PC line any time soon... they had the fastest chip with the Power6 on the market last I checked too), theres been very little interest out there, it was supposed to be "a low cost super chip" and if fell far short in so many areas that to hear people like you waffle on and even have the balls to try attach the label of "most powerfull CPU ever" to it whether it really is better at Ray tracing than the latest Intel chips or not it doesnt even get you a quarter of the way there on its own in compared to whats needed to be compared in a modern CPU(ie the type of operations expected of it, some of which CELL is way behind in).
    Edited by 2 at 09/06/09 @ 18:19

  • Yaz #80 3 years ago

    @Mr.Me

    Cell's specialized area is vector performance, hence physics, ray tracing, video/audio encoding/decoding etc, are areas where Cell will outperform Intel CPUs, often by a significant margin. However it's general processing capabilities are poor by today's standard (hence the reason it was rejected by Apple who then switched from IBM to Intel).

    For the majority of day to day activities performed on user's PCs, whether they're running Windows, Mac OS, Linux or another OS, general processing performance is more important than arithmetic performance, and hence Intel CPUs are better suited to general processing tasks than Cell (i.e. Intel processors are significantly faster in this respect).

    So for the consoles, on paper, this results in the 360's CPU (Xenon) having about twice the general processing power of Cell, but Cell having about twice the arithmetic processing power of Xenon. Hence for the majority of multi-format games, the overall performance balances out, but for exclusive, talented devs can push the PS3 slightly beyond the 360 in some ways, and the 360 slightly beyond the PS3 in other ways.

    Back on topic, Patrick Soderlund's comments should be taken with a pinch of salt, since other devs always seem to managed to push consoles further than EA.

  • Rash' #81 3 years ago

    Machiavellian, Your logic at points is intriguing, baffling and again misleading. Let me explain;

    You ask why Sony first party devs are able to achieve greater results than their third party counterparts, apparently aware of the development trends and yet seem ignorant of them when making your arguments. Isn't it true that as first party developers, the time and resources of Sony's in house teams are channelled towards a single platform, while third parties, who have for the majority of this gen lead on 360, a comparatively different architecture, have had to divided them between more than one? This I believe is a well known point so again it amazes me you seem oblivious of it as if the bliss of ignorance will strengthen your argument. It does not.

    Secondly, Uncharted, a game that is herald by Digital Foundry as an example of brilliant technical achievement this gen, was delivered in the beginning of the second year of PS3's life, so the technical feat's of it's sequel have not been achieved "in one game" or through some advantage that is lacking in the competitions resources.

    I would argue that if this is a discussion of resources than it's one of how the companies have managed them. Compare, if you will, the E3 showings last week. While Sony chose to focus their resources on their gaming output, Microsoft chose to invest in strengthing it's position as the market leader in the online arena.

    What is misleading is your suggestion that I am dismissing the 360 in favour of championing PS3. I did nothing of the sort. My beef (if you'll excuse the slang) is with this latest fanboy propanganda that suggests the technical feats being achieved on PS3 are in some way being delivered through unfair advantage. If MS, really wanted to invest money on their first party gaming output, I think we'd all agree, they would. It is their choice not to.

    Having developed a notoriously exotic achitecture with very little in the way of software support initially, it was Sony's obligation to lead development on their platform. After all when PS3 arrived, the development trend was well establish with MS's earlier launch, easier hardware and better software support.

    To suggest that Sony's first party development has luxuries outside the means of other developers is another, very cynical, attempt to undermine the achievements of the Sony's strategy and platform. It doubly undermines the achievement of those working with the platform, implying that they have only achieved those things because they have an unfair advantage. That, I'm sorry, is complete and utter bs, but please lets not have a cat fight about this. Lets agree that we disagree and patiently wait to see how R* manage their resources for their PS3 exclusive...

    :)
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/09 @ 18:54

  • Rash' #82 3 years ago

    IneptPercy, "Just trying to make the point I think the 360 still has a few tricks but I don't think anybody is investing enough to make it happen, where the PS3 had to make it happen to try and close the gap."

    I'm sure this will stir up a few here, but wouldn't that demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of an "easy to develop for" and a "not so easy to develop for" hardware strategy?

    You know some where amongst all these excuses and accusations is a begrudging compliment, but again as this is Eurogamer that compliment is hard to come by for Sony.

  • Yaz #83 3 years ago

    @Mr.Me

    But you see, the problem is, I don't see how a processor like Cell is going to help you, because whilst it will improve your video performance and similar maths based applications, everything else is now slower than before because of the lower general processing performance. So you've simply exchanged one problem for another, and I don't think it's a change for the better.

    Besides, Intel Graphics are VERY poor compared to ATI/NVidia graphics cards (which will also improve your video performance), which you acknowledge already. Hence from what you're saying, a better graphics card added to your current system will be of much greater benefit to you than a CPU with vector units and weaker general processing performance.

    This is why a good PC with a good graphics card offers higher performance for games than the Cell based PS3. :)
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/09 @ 23:17

  • Yaz #84 3 years ago

    "As for apple - they probably didn't like the sound of reprogramming for an untested architecture which they had little input into - who would?"

    That may have been an issue, but the key here is still performance, hence they were keen to switch from PowerPC to Intel (which was ahead of the G5 and accelerating). It's arguably a greater jump from Power PC to Intel than from PowerPC to the PowerPC based Cell processor! The fact is, for the vast majority of Mac applications, Cell would have offered much LOWER performance than the processors available at the time, and far less performance compared to the multi-core processors of today. Arithmetic operations would have benefited of course, so digital apps like Photoshop would have improved performance for many operations, but such apps account for a tiny minority, and therefore are not enough to justify the lost of performance elsewhere on the Mac.

    Anyway... my bed is calling me and my eyes are red and burning so... time for me to go ... cya :)

  • IneptPercy #85 3 years ago

    Rash I will give you that it is an interesting point. I can see the advantage of in the right hands when pushed the PS3 devopers can get amazing results (as proven).

    But it is very much a double edged sword, dare I say most big games are multi platform these days. With that these games aren't made with a PS3 specific engine and in most cases the same general engine will run both versions. In these cases the easy to develop for side of the 360 really shines and leads to advantages to the 360 a good amount of the time unless developers spend more time on the PS3 version.

    But I do believe Microsoft have got complacent. The reason the PS3 is pulling off what it is now is due to years of development of PS3 engines to really push the hardware which is what has give the PS3 this edge.

    So yes it maybe be unfair to compare a game which has took 4 years and a huge investment to games which haven't received that, but on the other hand its perfectly fair as Microsoft have had just as much time (if not more) and easily have the money but haven't used it. Hardware wise I have every faith that the 360 could pull off similar results with the same time and money, but it hasn't yet so I can only speculate.

    One thing for sure it should as least get Microsoft thinking, hopefully something will come of this and we may start to see what both consoles are capable of.

  • Calgon #86 3 years ago

    Mr.Me the strange thing is Yaz said basically the same thing I said, yet you gave me an ignorrant reply you dont half look a tool there... you are clueless.

    Me "Still no mention of a buyable intel chip that outperforms the cell as yet"

    You "For anything else you'd like to mention any of Intels modern chips would embaress CELL on performance"

    Well I already showed you a link that showed what sort of performance a cell gives on vector maths (since that is all it does*really do hope you mean thats all that paper shows rather thats all that CPUs have to do*).

    Maybe you could prove that with some facts?


    Well to frank this is why I say you are clueless and have no right to be comparing as you were earlier if you havent already seen the benchmarks/comparisons besides it being common knowlege these days --I mean even between 360s CPU and the CELL in PS3-- It was just as I suspected you are an over enthusiastic PS3 fan getting too caried away with the CELL hype.

    I was comparing cell with CPUs not GPUs - reason - GPUs have most of their time taken up for graphics.


    Really? Ever heard of SLI? If you problem is video performance its a no brainer, why you are waffling on about CELL being your solution I dont know, it would be damn site more wastefull than getting a new Intel CPU for what you need. ;)

    Give an example of something Intel chips are good for, apart obviously from running Windows :)

    Try almost everything else that paper wasnt talking about perhaps? ;) (or anything that doesnt relate directly to the single precision GFLOPs rating)

    Btw looking at the way you sarcastically commented about running windows I better add what Yaz has already said, General Purpose is just as important for games as vector maths, as they rise in complexity this will probably be even more important.
    Edited by 1 at 10/06/09 @ 02:42

  • Calgon #87 3 years ago

    IneptPercy agreed if you like you can point to him the 3 known 360 engines still being used(built from the ground up this gen for 360) I mentioned, if you know of any more feel free to tell me.

    Fable 2 engine - not all that fancy doesnt seem to have been built with pushing the graphics envelope in mind.

    Banjo engine - Rares first game built from the ground up for 360, it has its strong points but I was rather dissapointed in the end to be honest. Its a start though and I expect their next game will be based on an updated version of it, so here's hoping they still have 'it'.

    Forza 3 engine - I seem to remember PGR3-4 and Forza2 shared the same engine but Im not sure if it was started on final 360 hardware or not, this maybe a whole new engine I've not heard too much about it but Forza is looking much improved in this version.

    Thats all I can think of really, maybe Sony's determination to gain the upperhand here will give MS a kick up the backside so to speak, hears hoping anyway because I'd really like to see more progress in this area from MGS. Most of the best looking games are 3rd party on 360(on multi-platform engines), could it be that MS have realised people buy more 3rd party when the 3rd party devs aren't trailing behind 1st party? It could be stratagy and they are waiting for the last stretch to flex their 1st party tech muscles but it's probably penny pinching(the repair bill) or complacency(been happy with things the way they are going).

  • Rash' #88 3 years ago

    IneptPercy, ah but then we return to that old argument of why devs don't lead on PS3 and then port their results on the easier to develop for 360. certainly many agree that is a better way to manage third party resources than the other way around.

    i'm sorry but you will not convince me Sony's first party content has had greater time and resources than others to produce it's content. there may be some leverage to your argument when observing KZ2, but that particular title was the exception rather than the rule. And even then Alan Wake can just as easily be used to support my point that greater time and money is the rule for all large scale development moving forward. Yes, it began life as a PC title, but the similarities between PC and 360 are well documented so don't believe that to be an issue.

  • Yaz #89 3 years ago

    @Rash' who says "To suggest that Sony's first party development has luxuries outside the means of other developers is another, very cynical, attempt to undermine the achievements of the Sony's strategy and platform."

    It's true there are many gamers who set out to dismiss the achievements of the PS3, and do so automatically, regardingless of the topic being discussed. However, it's also true that there are those who tend to use Sony's first party achievements as a stick to bash the 360 with, and therefore instead of simply celebrating the quality of games like Uncharted and MGS4, they shout about how there's nothing on the 360 that compares to these games, and/or how these games would be impossible to do on the 360, and so on. Sounds familiar? ;-)

    I don't think it's a coincidence that the devs getting the best out of the PS3 this gen tend to be the same devs who got the best out of the PS2 last gen, and therefore shows that such achievements are also down to the talents, determination and focus of the developers. There are a handful of developers who always focus on squeezing more out of the hardware than anyone else, and for one reason or another, they tend to work primarily with Sony consoles. In fact, right now, I can't think of MS's equivalent of Naughty Dog for example.

    I have no doubt that if devs like Naughty Dog or Guerilla worked on the 360 in the way they worked on the PS3, they would have produced equally impressive results.

    So I agree it's wrong for gamers to casually dismiss some of the superb achievements we've seen on the PS3 console, but it's equally wrong for gamers to turn those achievements into something they're not, as often seen in 'console war' arguments.

  • IneptPercy #90 3 years ago

    The engines mentioned, with the same investment (and goals) dcould be as mighty.

    As for making on the Ps3 then porting to the PS3m when it does got that way it seems to work out great, but you are ignoring the 3rd platform... PC.

    It seems that the best version is made then scaled down for the 360 then ported to the PS3.

    As always hardware is only as good as the talent using it, you can go in circles saying which has the more potential with the 360 and PS3 on the hardware front, each has strengths and weaknesses. But when it comes to the talent programing on it, Sony do seem to have the best right now. Rare are a biggest let down to me, Conker on the xbox was amazing to look at and they haven't moved on much since then. Bungie also should be doing better Halo1/2 last gen where amzing to look at, as much as I can see what they are trying to do they could have made it a lot better looking by using different methods.

    As a PC gamer it doesn't worry me too much, as great as Killzone looks I have better looking on my PC.

  • Calgon #91 3 years ago

    Meh the douche has me on ignore @ 'Rash'.... he's one of those people who have the misguided opinion of "360 is just like a PC where PS3 isnt, so they dont need to do anything special for 360, what you see is what you get..." thats just rubbish as anyone whos knows anything about the consoles in general should know.

    The similarities between PS3 and PC are also well documented... the RSX is the most similar component to a PC part between these consoles. PS3 has the most unconventional/different CPU yes but then 360's IBM PPC derived CPU isnt something PC devs use either because its not a PC part, infact its just as close to CELL as it is to the modern x86 parts you could say.(an 'in between' but alot of it will be down to MS' dev kits too - the compiler ect we heard good things from devs on them way back at the start of this gen, 360 still has things which Im tired of repeating to the "360 = PC" idiots, that havent had the attention CELLs SPUs have had from developers)

    I wouldn't waste too much time on Rash', the more you talk to him the more you see he's another over enthusiastic PS3 fanboy, try and turn it into a proper discussion and you'll find he spits his dummy out when you bring things to his attention he had no idea of.(in which case he simply ignores them, even if you have proof and credible sources or if it's one of the many things which are common knowlege that they should already know, if they making such statements about which console can do what and why.)

    and therefore instead of simply celebrating the quality of games like Uncharted and MGS4, they shout about how there's nothing on the 360 that compares to these games, and/or how these games would be impossible to do on the 360, and so on. Sounds familiar? ;-)

    Very familiar, seems Yaz is wise to the many fanboy traits, it's quite bizarre how some of them appear as if they desperately need to beleive PS3 is more powerfull and 360 is suddenly going to fall behind. The fact is very few devs have had the luxury of time and budget for the likes of KZ2, GT5... Naughty Dog(although someone in another thread brought up the fact that they spent 3 years building their engine alone) and Insomniac are the 2 best developers on the platform for their output rate and results, it could be that they are just talented or it could be that they also have larger teams to work with(which would be a reason they have been able to move faster than anyone else).
    Edited by 2 at 10/06/09 @ 15:53

  • Rash' #92 3 years ago

    Yaz, my complaint has been consistent through out this thrend, it is; to give credit where credit is due. clearly PS3 is pushing technical boundaries on console, yet rather than acknowledge that we get what i termed as "apologetic excuses". a situation where PS3 is starting to set technical benchmarks, but fanboys make allowances for why that is. it can't be that the system is actually capable of producing what our eyes can clearly see. there has to be a whole number of other reasons for why that is. it can't be that the guys running the ship at Sony are actually doing a good job. sorry, but it just sounds like sour grapes to me.

  • Rash' #93 3 years ago

    IneptPercy, if the software is to run on all three platforms then there really is no stopping the 360 port being scaled up for PC. i don't really see the issue there.

  • IneptPercy #94 3 years ago

    "IneptPercy, if the software is to run on all three platforms then there really is no stopping the 360 port being scaled up for PC. i don't really see the issue there."

    I have to disagree there, yes it could work but one of the advantages which is starting to show more is better textures, as with any picture/texture you can downscale and still get reasonable results but to upscale them is a waste of time.

    As it is multi platform PC games are still being restricted slightly but can then use the 'spare' power to increase frame rates, draw distance etc. If you look at PC games which are unpinned from the multi platform shackles they are far ahead of the consoles.

    Only down side is Dev's do like to get the console versions out first (Dare I say I think piracy plays a part in this) so I am still waiting for Street Fighter IV and Resi 5, but its worth the wait knowing I will get the definitive versions.

  • Rash' #95 3 years ago

    IneptPercy, "I have to disagree there, yes it could work but one of the advantages which is starting to show more is better textures, as with any picture/texture you can downscale and still get reasonable results but to upscale them is a waste of time."

    you raise a valid point and as PC isn't my forte, i concede. PC can throw up a whole number problems into the equation... if publishers feel the returns from investing their multiplat titles on the platform are justified. more often than not, however, that isn't the case (and crytek's recent announcement to shift their development focus to console certainly suggests that trend is likely to continue) so i stand by my assertion for multiplat development.

  • IneptPercy #96 3 years ago

    I would still like to think that Crysis 2's lead platform will be PC and it is cut massively for the consoles, basically trying to squeeze more money out by selling it on consoles too. So not so much moving development to consoles, just getting it running on consoles.

    Can't blame them really, as you say if the PC isn't in the equation it would make sense to lead on the PS3. It comes down to a per game/per developer choice and the current trend is that most games get ported to the PS3 which can lead to 'lessor' versions, that said it doesn't seem as bad as it use to be and differences are more marginal than they use to be.

  • Calgon #97 3 years ago

    Nah if PC isnt in the equation then it makes sense to have two teams working in tandom making sure each version is the best it can be, then that way we get to see the strengths of each console rather than a game built to the strengths of one console ported to another(meaning one console wont get the chance to prove where it can do better than the lead version).

    There is the arguement that PS3 development takes longer and the tools aren't up to the standard of 360's too, having said that with PC out of the equation they'd both benifit, they do share alot of similarities... both IOOE CPUs, both would work best with heavy parellelisation(on 360 theres 6 hardware threads, VMX128 registers on each thread that work pretty much in the same way the SPUs do) and so on.(both fixed platform, similar amounts of ram to work with and the more obvious stuff)