Evan Wells on Jak PS3 potential, Manhunt 2, more News

Good work EG and thanks to Evan for contributing.

That was great. \o/ I enjoyed following it live.

Get Peter Molyneux in! That would be a jolly good laugh, wouldn't it?

You guys should stop querying if title X is possible on console Y. It only fuels fanboy wars and it fuels lies from developers.

@ Dizzy

Truth hurts ?

I remember last gen when Xbots were rubbing 'Omg we've got teh most powerful console lol' in PS2 & GC owners faces. Now the shoes on the other foot these questions don't matter now hmm ?

Truth hurts ?

BIG yawn dude... I have seen nothing on either console that cannot be done and I haven't seen any technical reasons why it would be possible to do something that the other cannot do.

I guess truth hurts for you more... because you uber potential console X doesn't seem to produce that potential? Every timer a game comes out for console X, people jump in and say OMG best graphics EVAR. Not possible on console Y!!! Luckily professionals know better. You fail.

See? You are already beginning the fanboy nonsense.

I should've shown up and asked if they're going to create a NEW platformer franchize. Crash was good, Jak and Daxter were even better, and I wonder if they can create another quality mascot. I almost expected them to give up on the Jak franchize, and concentrate on making a new one for the PS3 - like they gave up on Crash.

Would've been best for Insomniac as well. Not that I don't love Ratchet and Clank, but I like a change, and I'd love a new platformer franchise from them too. Spyro was PS1, R&C was PS2, and instead of creating a new exciting platformer we get R&C on the PS3 as well?

Prays for some originality in future platformers (outside of the Super Mario franchise).

I should've shown up and asked if they're going to create a NEW platformer franchize.

Just what exactly is Uncharted?

Action/Adventure?

Would you call Tomb Raider a platformer?

Would you call Tomb Raider a platformer?

Yes.

Assassin's Creed is a platformer as well then? Is jumping and climbing all that's needed to call it a platformer? If that's the case, Crackdown is a platformer.

i expect a jak PS3 game in '09 i guess

@ Dizzy

Name me one game on 360 that looks better than Uncharted :)

Kinda sad really that after 2 years on the market the 360 has already been surpassed by the PS3 which devs have only been working on for a year. Everyone (not on Microsofts ****) knew this was going to happen but I'm still surprised it happened so soon

To be honest, I actually can't tell any major difference between the titles on PS3 and Xbox 360. In terms of graphical quality, they seem to be exactly the same.

Yeah i agree, admittedly all i've seen of Uncharted is videos and screenshots but to me the overall graphics don't look any better than say Bioshock or Mass Effect and certainly look doable on the 360 and likewise theres nothing on the 360 that i don't think could be done on the PS3.

One may well be more powerful than the other but as yet neither have proved it.

None of it matters, at any rate.

Mass Effect comes nowhere near Uncharted in terms of graphics. The textures are pretty as poor TBH and the the animations are not nearly as fluid.

As for Bioshock the only thing that it can compete with Uncharted is the water
Eveything else Uncharted > Bioshock

Give it a fucking rest, will you?

Would you call Tomb Raider a platformer?

Absolutely! It was 3D Prince of Persia long before Prince of Persia 3D (and better, IMO).

MasterGrief wrote: "Name me one game on 360 that looks better than Uncharted :)"

That's is a pointless exercise because it's a matter of opinion not fact, and in the end proves nothing anyway, since both consoles will continue to produce better looking games as this generation progresses.

As with console wars in previous gens, gamers (often fanboys) always latch onto the latest great looking game and cry out from the rooftops to the other fanboys below "Show me a game on YOUR console that looks better than THIS". So now it's Uncharted from PS3 fanboys, previously it was Gears of War from 360 fanboys. It never ends.

Hence I agree with Dizzy that given the power simularities between the consoles, there isn't anything we're seeing on the 360 or PS3 that can not be achieved on the other console.

You mention one more thing I find interesting MasterGrief, and it's when you said "I remember last gen when Xbots were rubbing 'Omg we've got teh most powerful console lol' in PS2 & GC owners faces.". Yes, I remember that too. I also remember PS2 owners CORRECTLY saying that it's the games that count, and that gameplay is more important than graphics. So it's a shame to see gamers like yourself behaving EXACTLY the same as those Xbots you refer to from last gen. :|

@ Yaz

Your right it's the games that count, but theres nothing wrong with asking technical questions about the game or the platforms since those have an affect on gameplay too.

And as I said Xbox fanboys adopted the whole 'our console is the most powerful' philosophy last gen , so I don't see why PS3 owners should suddenly start playing by their rules now that the tables have turned

I think Uncharteds graphics are being overrated really(nice and all but nothing unique about the look it has) its got textures, lighting and scale(draw distance which is probably the biggest difference to the games its being compared to, it seems some people dont know what to look for when comparing or just cant tell whats better or not ) going for it but even that isnt consistant from what Ive seen(I take it tearing will happen on the scenes with the greater scale)... I really dont see where MG gets his ideas from theres plenty of things all those games he's compared it to do better.

Its on par with the top teir 360 games at best, not arguing about it though, there will be more cases like this where Sony fans will fool themselves into beleiving they are getting something better when thats just not right at all(there were some high hopes, I think its time for some of the fanboys to admit its not turned out like some were hoping... its not all bad though we will still have 2 powerfull consoles going at it for a the rest of this gen lets see how far they go).

MasterGrief but this isnt like last gen at all, Xbox was no question more powerfull than PS2 that was evident throughout last gen... this just isn't nearly the same, too evenly matched. You could even say 360 is the better console technically and it wouldnt be wrong either.

@ Calgon

While the 360 may have some slight advantagees in certain aspects (unified RAM etc) overall the PS3 is cleary more powerful. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

The CPU is easily more powerful, Blu-ray > DVD and finally it has a built in hard drive so yeah its just like last gen (Xbox had a better CPU/built in HDD etc)

Also even if its 'on par with top tier 360 games' as you say then doesn't that say something that PS3 is achieving in 1 year what 360 did in 2 ?

"Kinda sad really that after 2 years on the market the 360 has already been surpassed by the PS3"

If that were even true (which it is not) it wouldn't be sad, merely a late deliverance of what Sony promised you (and made you pay a hefty sum for) years ago. Honestly, it's nice that PS3 fans now have one worth while exclusive but you're clearly deluded in some of the claims you make. In my personal opinion, Uncharted still doesn't visually surpass 360 games of a year ago like Gears, but as others have said, that's down to personal opinion.

I have copy and pasted one of Yaz' posts for you MG. Read it, it is rather accurate and hopefully you will learn something...

The Cell chip is excellent but nothing special (hence Sony has pulled out from further Cell developement in future!). It a great chip for arithmetic, and that's it's strength, making it about twice as powerful as the 360's CPU (Xenon) for floating-point power on paper. However for running general/main code, Xenon has around twice the power of Cell (games require processing BOTH main code and arithmetic, not just the later). The PS3 has an advantage of more space per disk thanks to Blu-ray, but the 360's DVD drive is faster (hence the PS3 relies more on it's HDD for improving load times). The 360 has an advantage of at least 40MB more ram for it's games compared to the PS3, because the PS3 OS require more (but it's improving). The 360's GPU (Xenos) is noted as being slightly better than RSX

MasterGrief Ive forgotton more about these consoles than you know, you really dont want to start an arguement with me about it.

They are pretty even is the only fact we know for sure(so nothing like Xbox and PS2 or Xbox and GC ect its a new gen with different hardware and the comparisons just arent the same at all).

The CPU is easily more powerful, Blu-ray > DVD

You see neither of those are necessarily wrong but the problem lies with the exagerations of the advantage PS3 has there... yes CELL is more powerfull overall, but is it better at everying important to gaming?(its quite obvious already thats not the case looking at the results so far, even without going into the reasons why... hint some of the advantages cell has arent as important for gaming as they are for other things) The answer is no, as for Blu-Ray better than 360 DVD? capacity Yes transfer/access speed - No. Hard Drive? you have a point there it is nice to have it as standard for devs to use properly but since MOST people do have a hard drive theres good reason now to make better use of it in the future, even still it is still used for caching and IIRC some streaming too so it can still be a benifit but obviously they cant push too much on the game onto it or the Core will be unplayable.

Are we going to ignore the rest of the system and leave it at a Cell and Xenon comparison? Rather conveniant for you that huh? The rest is just as important --you will see this whether you like it or not eventually-- the GPUs are just as important(as is the RAM) as the CPUs in modern systems and Xenos is easily more powerfull, efficient and advanced.

Also even if its 'on par with top tier 360 games' as you say then doesn't that say something that PS3 is achieving in 1 year what 360 did in 2 ?


Considering PS3 software development started pretty close to 360 regardless of release dates no... theres only so long you can use that excuse, infact I say that has expired now, what will you use as an excuse now? We've had devs work their asses off just to get PS3 up to 360s level, 360 hasnt needed that special treatment yet, its a testament to the 360 hardware if anything.

Assassin Creed looks better then Uncharted both on PS3 & 360, though it's a larger game and more freedom (Uncharted lacks). So to say that this can't be done on 360 is just weired.

Also the dev kits for PS3 where out before the console, due to manufacturing parts for PS3 cause delay by a 1 year though the games have been in development longer. Lair , Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, Clank..are the infact same gen games as 360 games. Remember Motor Storm, HS, Lair was shown back in 2005 using PS3 dev kits.

Call Of Duty 4, Gears OF War, Mass Effect, Assassin Creed, Oblivion..amongst others; all are doing more and less liner and mostlylarger games then Uncharted. So I can't really see this point,

@MasterGrief

Don't bother m8... you are on ignore from now on. I really have no time to argue this nonsense with internet forum idiots. I make computer games... and I grew tired of going into technical discussions with non-devs in.. err... 1985 I think when the whole Spectrum vs C64 thing was happening. I will leave you in the belief that Drake is the best ever looking game and cannot be done on anything else. Case closed... enjoy the company in the ignore list.

Tsk... it's obvious that the C64 was the superior machine.

>Tsk... it's obvious that the C64 was the superior machine.

/hand hovers over ignore button

:)

J/k...

C64 vs Spectrum.... now with hindsight I think almost all older gamers agree that both kicked ass :)

As they say the proofs in the pudding ;)

People are dismissing the clear advantage's of Cell saying it's not efficient when running games but at the end of the day it still has a higher perfromance than the 360's CPU

Blu-Ray - Sure it has marginally slowly speeds than DVD and has to be made up for with the HDD but at the end of the day it still has more space = > DVD

And the fact still remains that 360 devs have had an extra year to get used to the console (some PS3 devs didn't even get kits until after launch) so why is the the PS3 already on the same/higher level when it's apparently so hard to develop for ?

Taken from the review

'Truly, Uncharted is the first game I've seen to date that makes me wonder if it could be done on the Xbox 360, and as a huge admirer of the software line-up on Microsoft's system, that's saying a lot'


Oh and Dizzy you seem to have forgotten that making claims like 'I'm blah blah blah' to back up your opinion are completely meaningless on the internet so don't bother

MasterGrief, the only next-gen console I own is a PS3. I like it. I bought my PS3 mostly for games, and now they're coming.

But I can't stand your drivel. Reading your crap almost makes feel like selling away my PS3.

In case you didn't get the hint, STFU.

Wow you've totally dismantled my argument lol

Nothing like ad hominem to prove your point.
Oh and you must be pretty weak minded if my posts have such an affect on your purchasing decisions :) Have a good day

And the fact still remains that 360 devs have had an extra year to get used to the console (some PS3 devs didn't even get kits until after launch)

Like I said this isnt an excuse they had PS3 dev kits arguably further along than 360 devs kits at their first E3, so whether some devs got them after launch or not there would have been other reasons for it(financial reasons?... at the price Sony were charging I wouldnt be surprised). You dont have many arguements, you are just repeating the same ones "OMG the almighty Cell and Blu-Ray just you wait, blow Xbots away they will", the fact that its been out for over a year and been in developers hands close to two years kind of dilutes that "only been out 5 mins and its caught up" blag of yours. The untapped potential is a well known gameplan of Sonys... its not exclusive to playstations(they did the same with PS2), how long do the devs need to figure out Cell?(2 years is a long time no matter how difficult... none of them are easy to "untap" fully, naughty dog were no strangers to paralellisation - which is often talked about as something "brand new"... they were doing it for PS2 and they think of themselves as technical experts, so the switch to Cell would have been easier on them than most other devs so far) will you be using the same excuses next year? I expect you will and the year after that if you have to. A funny thing you are overlooking is my point about special treatment, two of the games you compared Uncharted to arent even on native 360 engines, most 360 devs have been spending less time on the engine because performance is good enough already(sure they still optimise but my point is 360 will easily keep up with the same special treatment to learning all there is about the hardware).

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/21/final...

Final dev kits were delivered in August 06 nearly a full year after the 360 had been out

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/01/07/4-000-...

Early dev kits distributed early 2006 which is still after the 360 had launched so yes 360 devs have had at least an extra year of dev time

Jun 2005 Sony starts shipping dev kits (early kits but what you said was just plainly innacurate regardless of the source because I remember reading when they shipped which is why I dont buy this blag of yours)

Stop with the bullshit its well known that most delays were to do with manufacturing problems, so they planned on getting dev kits out very early in the hopes of launching with better looking games but they couldnt manage it. So what is the excuse? theyve had long enough(naughty dog would have been one of the first devs to get their hands on them about two years... PS3 devs had more time with their final dev kits than 360 which had some launch games that were over 90% complete on beta devkits).

MasterGrief wrote: "Your right it's the games that count, but theres nothing wrong with asking technical questions about the game or the platforms since those have an affect on gameplay too."

Except you're not asking questions, you're simply making assumptions.

>"And as I said Xbox fanboys adopted the whole 'our console is the most powerful' philosophy last gen , so I don't see why PS3 owners should suddenly start playing by their rules now that the tables have turned"

And as you've correctly identified, it was Xbox *FANBOYS* who said that last gen, hence those behaving the same way this gen are PS3 fanboys. Two wrongs don't make a right. :P

>"People are dismissing the clear advantage's of Cell saying it's not efficient when running games but at the end of the day it still has a higher perfromance than the 360's CPU"

Cell has on paper, twice the floating-point power of the 360's CPU (Xenon) thanks to 6 SPEs for games. Xenon however has around twice the power of Cell for running main code, thanks to three 3.2 GHz cores for this purpose compared to just one in Cell (the PPE). Games are a combination of both, not arithmetic only, therefore on balance, the two CPUs are about even, with Cell edging ahead in games where heavy enthasist is placed upon floating-point calculations.

That's hardly a clear advantage.

Blu-ray has more capacity per disk, whereas the DVD drive in the 360 is around 40% faster on average. So it's not a simple case of Blu-ray being better, because like the CPUs, both have their pros and cons.

And this applies to other areas of the consoles too. The 360 has a slightly better GPU, it also has 40MB more RAM for it's games compared to the PS3 (because of OS requirements). The PS3 has a HDD in every console and it's more flexible to upgrade than the 360. XBL is still a better online service but closed, but PSN is free and open (hence UT3 mods) and it will soon have 'Home'.

The point is, both consoles have there pros and cons and both are very close to each other in terms of power (devs with experience working on BOTH consoles have confirmed this many times), and therefore the 360 and PS3 are much closer than any two consoles last gen, hence there's not much difference between them.

Finally, the 1yr/2yr arguement is not a valid comparison, since there is not a clear one year difference between 360 and PS3 game developement. Many of the games we see were in developement at the same time regardless of when the consoles were launched, where the most technically accomplished games tend to take the longest to develop.

Finally, you quoted "Uncharted is the first game I've seen to date that makes me wonder if it could be done on the Xbox 360". Ok, so he WONDERS if it could be done on the 360. He's a reviewer and he's not sure, which means to him Uncharted is VERY impressive, but it doesn't tell us anything about whether it can be achieved on the 360 or not.

"http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/21/final...
Final dev kits were delivered in August 06 nearly a full year after the 360 had been out"

PS3 games were all runnning on final PS3 devkits during E3 2006, as announced by Kaz Hirai during the Sony conference. Download and watch the conference again, or read through the following;

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/...

"He confirms the early November launch will be world wide, and final dev kits are shipping NOW. Games will be fully playable on the show floor."

Yep, during E3 May 2006, he stated final devkits were shipping NOW. Sure not everyone would have final devkits (or as many as they would like), but the big developers definately had theirs.

Now, from my understanding, November 2005 to May 2006 is 6 months, not 1 year (even August 2006 is not 1 year, it's 9 months, which isn't 'nearly' a year). :)

Yaz: Xenos is the leveler(infact could mean better performance in the end if Cell doesn't make up the difference) so its not just 'slightly' better(although it appears so at first glance on paper... a closer look is needed as with the CPUs and RAM) there are things that it does much better at, Ive got a few posts from a year back on here, Im not getting into that again though.

"Yaz: Xenos is the leveler(infact could mean better performance in the end if Cell does make up the difference) so its not just 'slightly' better"

I choose my words carefully because I don't think you can really say how much better Xenos is compared to RSX, if it's not just slightly better, how much better would you say?

IMO, the most you can say about them is that Xenos is slightly better, just as I would say overall Cell is slightly better than Xenon. However each may be much better in 'certain' areas than the other (Cell for floating-point, Xenon for main code, Xenos for feature X, RSX for feature Y etc), but overall, one is only slighty better than the other.

Back later...

Keep it going guys :)

Yaz as I say I do know quite a bit about the differences, if you want to find those posts... but theres a way to go before we see the full potential of either Xenos or Cell(even Xenon has some to untap too if devs put the research and effort in). Ive always been of the opinion that ideally it would have been Cell and Xenos as the best pair how much better that would have been in practise is anyones guess. I see what your saying though but "overall" is usually what we mean, so they will have their advantages here and there but one is sometimes clear enough to call the stronger(overall output), also efficiency and bottlenecks are often ignored with systems as close as these are it can be very important(I think 360 does more favourably here but we'll see).

>"Yaz as I say I do know quite a bit about the differences, if you want to find those posts...""

*Groan* You mean I must wade through all your old posts to read about it? Couldn't you make it easier? LOL! Ok, I'll take your word for it and will have a look when I have time.

>"but theres a way to go before we see the full potential of either Xenos or Cell(even Xenon has some to untap too if devs put the research and effort in). Ive always been of the opinion that ideally it would have been Cell and Xenos as the best pair how much better that would have been in practise is anyones guess."

Agreed. :)

(Definately going this time... back later)

Im going too, I just wanted to point out the predicable spin on the facts some fanboys do(like the amount of time devs have had with the hardware) but it always ends up going into a specs discussion... even though weve heard it all before.

Funny how MasterGrief fucked off after his bollocks comments were torn to shreds.

Tosser.

Probably past his bedtime...

Uncharted does not look as good or above Call Of Duty 4, Assassins Creed. Plus having a game in lush environments always give it natural cleaner organic look due to the coloring and blue skies etc. But it's nice...Gears Of War, Crysis, Assassin Creed and Motor Storm look not only better but with alot more going on form A.i, game (area) size and action, effects, characters etc. There also a fair amount of pop up on this game.

"as for Blu-Ray better than 360 DVD? capacity Yes transfer/access speed - No."

Blu-ray - 53.95 Mbit/s
DVD - 11.08 Mbit/s

Am I missing something here?

Blu-Ray movies require a 1.5x Blu-Ray drive, or 54Mbits/second. The PS3 uses a 2x BD drive, which is 72Mbits/second or 9MB/second. The Xbox 360 uses a 12x DVD, which should give it about 16MB/second. That is significantly faster for games and will result in shorter load times.