PS3 and 360 'look even' - Dyack Related content
Too Human game info
Advertisement
PS3 and 360 'look even' - Dyack News
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3 News by Tom Bramwell
Silicon Knights president Denis Dyack subscribes to the view that PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 are roughly equal.
Speaking to Mercury News' Dean Takahashi, Dyack said, "Maybe the PS3 has more processing power. The 360 has more available memory. It's pretty much a net, net. The public perception of the PS3 was that it was much more powerful. To developers, they look even."
And even though the PS3 potentially has that greater processing power, "you have to get the timing right". Not the easiest thing in the world.
Dyack's also less than sold on the platform holders' favourite resolution, 1080p, arguing that the difference between it and 720p is "questionable". "All of our games are likely to be 720p because of the faster refresh rates," he told Takahashi. "There are all kinds of trade-offs. It takes a lot more RAM to do 1080p. You'll reserve RAM for the textures. 720p is just less pixels. [But] There is definitely a huge difference from 720p and analog."
Dyack's Silicon Knights is currently at work on the first game in the Too Human trilogy for Xbox 360, based on the Unreal Engine 3. In the past it's worked on games like Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, both for GameCube.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Too Human on Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Too Human
Latest Features
-
Too Human Review [168]
-
Too Human Interview [12]
-
Too Human Hands On [84]
-
Too Human First Impressions [38]
-
Too Human Interview [156]
Latest Videos
The Eurogamer TV Show: Denis Dyack on Too Human [2] 19 August, 2008
Too Human - Iceforest [1] 7 August, 2008
Latest News
-
Dyack: 2009 cuts have been "staggering" [19]
-
Name of Silicon Knights game leaked [19]
-
Silicon Knights cuts 26 jobs temporarily [29]
-
Peter Molyneux picks apart Too Human [9]
-
Japanese charts: Afrika riding high [24]
Latest Screenshots
17 June, 2008 [26]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
0
The problem isn't whether there is a difference or not. We all KNOW there's a 'difference'. The problem is, that difference is not that significant. It's like comparing mp3 and wma. Only the true audio geek will notice any difference. The rest of us will just conclude that they sound more or less the same.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 02/11/06 @ 08:28
|
|
BartonFink
02/11/06 @ 08:27
0
Oh here we go again.
Hmm thought I read somewhere that the 360 can handle textures better because of the memory architecture? Should be interesting to see how this one develops, no sign of Kazclose yet.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 02/11/06 @ 08:29
|
|
0
It's just daft to say that the difference is questionable - Harder to do, but definitely there.
I think that what he meant is: There is a difference but the trade-off of resolution vs fidelity is not good enough to warrant it, which is basically what everybody else has been saying. He's just late. Kinda like his game. ;) |
|
0
Being a PC gamer myself, I have never found myself going back to 1024x768 after experiencing 1920x1080, thinking, 'Oh what the hell - 1024x768 is good enough as long as I am getting an additional 5 frames per second!" Gamers tend to stretch whatever platform they have to as far as it will go, unless the game becomes unplayable. I know I do.
Again, I am not saying that 1024x768 is necessarily bad (since how a game looks at various resolutions is down to the ability of the dev), but come on man, talk some sense. |
|
0
Sure if you compare a game in 720p to 1080p where FPS is similar and graphical effects etc are similar then 1080p is best, that's not what he is saying though. Specifically he mentioned refresh rates and increased memory use. Increased memory use means less memory for textures, models and other stuff.
So what it comes down to is whether the trade off is good or not. A simple numbers comparison of 1080p vs. 720p obviously says 1080p is better - but when you have to devote resources to the issue it is not so clear cut. The fact that Resistance has slipped back from 1080p to 720p is very telling. @Talha The PC resolution argument is also a personal preference. Many, many gamers will sacrifice resolution for a consistent frame rate. So it all comes down to what the systems can handle. Personally I don't think either console has the memory to properly support 1080p without sacrifices. |
|
Muddtallica
02/11/06 @ 09:22
0
Whatever. Never played Eternal Darkness, but SK really dropped the ball on the MGS remake, which should have been a sure thing, so I take his expert views with a pinch of salt.
|
|
Psychotext
02/11/06 @ 09:38
0
Just so you know, Silicon Knights is working on a PS3 title... it just doesn't have a name yet and it's being done in collaboration with Sega. So quiet down fanboys.
|
|
0
The whole 1080p vs 720p "debate" boils down to one simple thing: Technical feasibility. A game in 1080p on PS3 will look sharper than an x360 game running at 720p, right?
Not necessarily. 1080p demands huge amounts of memory, and huge amounts of processing power. Running games at 720p with 6x FSAA might actually be preferable to 1080p with 2x FSAA. Also, games running at 1080p will probably not be as dense graphically as a game running at 720p, simply because 1080p makes such demands on the hardware. Basically, you'll have to slide the detail level of the game down to up the resolution. So, what would you rather have? Visually extravagant games, or high resolution games? You can't have both this generation. 1080p is way too early and the PS3 does not really seem to be built for it. It's not even a proper dilemma, as in "oooh, should I go for an x360 or a PS3? The PS3 will have 1080p, so that's an advantage" because only a small minority of all games will ever support the resolution in the first place, and at the cost of graphical fidelity. At the end of the day, 1080p is just marketing speak from Sony. BUY OUR NEW 1080P TELEVISIONS TO REVEL IN THE FULL MIGHT OF THE PS3! |
|
0
Actually.
If you haven't bought an HDTV already why wouldn't you buy a 1080p one? The bluray/hddvd movies will support it but the television broadcasts will probably only max out on 720p. Games will come in all shapes since you'll probably still be playing PS2 games and you'll probably get the Wii and be reduced to playing 480p games so why not play a couple of 720p games on the PS3 and Xbox 360 to then up it to 1080p if a game can support it with a flawless framerate. Which currently only seem to be something the downloadable titles and Ridge Racer can do. |
|
0
Well no matter how high the processing power, upping the resolution would always mean turning down the detail level a notch if you want to run it on the same hardware. I think I covered all the bases in my comment - specifically about 720p not bad by any means, and playability of a game at the expense of resolution. What I meant was that any gamer will turn up the resolution as far as it will go as far as it is playable.
|
|
0
If you haven't bought an HDTV already why wouldn't you buy a 1080p one?
Because I don't usually have an additional 2000 pounds lying around to spend on a television. A nice 40" LCD 720p screen isn't prohibitively expensive, but the price nearly doubles if you want those extra pixels, baby. That's liable to change, sure. But not quite yet. Does not change the fact that 1080p is "convergent marketing"-speak. Drive sales of televisions via the potential of BluRay and the strangely magnetic pull of high-resolution games. |
|
0
Sony is right about one thing with 1080p, though, and that is the fact that IT IS the real HDTV standard in the near future (basically now). Every HD DVD and BD movie is in 1080p. It's not even a question of what Sony thinks, since even HD DVD uses it as a standard.
If you're going HDTV, wait until you have the money to buy a decent 1080p TV or upgrade as soon as possible. It's only stupid not to make the most out of the new format. |
|
0
You can't compare PC monitors to TVs, there's a big difference between a PC monitor where you're a foot from the screen, and a TV where you're sat on the other side of the room.
I've got a 26" 720p TV, I've hooked my PC up to it and played Half Life 2 in 1360*768, it looks great, you can't see the pixels. When I was shopping round for a HD TV the only 1080p TVs were over 40". Do many people buy TVs that big? What's the point of developing games in a resolution that the vast majority of people don't have and probably won't ever get. |
|
0
Because a £4000 investment is necessarily unacceptable for most people?
It's a fucking television! If I had £4000 lying around, I'd go out and see the world, go places. I think a lot of people have that idea. Spending £2000 extra for higher resolution in select games or to support an already dying multimedia format sounds like a very, very bad waste of money to me. Sorry. |
|
0
I agree. 1080p TVs are prohibitiively expensive right now, and there are probably a thousand better things you could do with that kind of cash.
By the way, is there any way to hook up X360/PS3 to an LCD monitor and get HD gameplay? I just bought one and I surely don;t have the cash to shell out on an HDTV separately, at least not right now. |
|
0
Singapore. One of the best markets in the world for electronics.
Either way, this discussion was not really about price: It was about technical feasibility. Do you think that PS3 is completely able to match the x360 in terms of visual quality, running at each platform's "native" resolutions (presuming that the PS3 is 1080p native)? |
|
Psychotext
02/11/06 @ 10:06
0
Arwin: I don't know why I'm defending him, but I think he makes his points clear and I agree. If you have to trade off detail and frame rate for resolution then the advantage of 1080p really is "questionable". Personally I'd go for lower resolution and higher detail / smoother gaming settings if I had to make the choice... and please don't tell me that there is no trade off with the PS3 otherwise we'd have seen Resistance in 1080p as I guarantee Sony would have been putting a lot of pressure on for it to tick that box.
I'm pretty platform independent but I am a developer and I do know that neither of these machines has the horsepower to do 1080p with AA, 60 fps and the level of detail of something like Crysis. [Edit - I'd love to be proved wrong. I'm a gamer first. Maybe further on in the lifecycle of the PS3 / 360 we'll see clever developers pushing them to the absolute performance limits and getting there.]
Edited 2 times,
most recently on 02/11/06 @ 10:12
|
|
0
Just because BD and HD DVDs will all be in 1080p doesn't mean you should buy a 1080p TV, because you simply will not notice the difference between 720 and 1080 unless you buy an enormous TV.
Here's a test. Compare 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 resolutions on your PC without changing the monitor. Do you spot the difference? |
|
useyourloaf
02/11/06 @ 10:09
0
Do people on kitchen appliance sites debate the 'specs' of toasters? It's all about the toast!
|
|
0
Psychotext: There is always the less detailed route that you can go. I wouldnt mind playing something clean and simple like Locoroco in 1080p.
(Oh and I hope they make it, it's the perfect downloadable title for the tiltcontroller, well that and mercury)
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 02/11/06 @ 10:12
|
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
