Uncharted used less than half PS3's power Comments by Robert Purchese

I think the idea was that since they only had a relatively short amount of time with the hardware, they didn't know the best ways to access all of the power. It's not like developers have a dial to turn up and down when developing a game to decide how much power to use is it?

@ Zomoniac: Thanks for the reply.

I've played other titles where people seem to complain about screen tearing, but not that one. Either I'm going blind (too much time on SSHD will do that to you) or it might not be such an issue for someone who grew up with colour attribute clash on the ZX Spectrum!

a hearty, half-powerful lol

Doctor_What - Screen tearing happens in games that have it regardless of whether you see it or not, it's very much dependent on your tolerance to such issues and viewing distance. Some people just don't see it (or dismiss it as a trivial glitch) and others, like me sadly, can spot it straight away even if it's only minor and be annoyed by it!

Thankfully the better developers strive to keep it to an absolute minimum so monstrosities like Saints Row (pre-patch), Heavenly Sword and Splinter Cell: Double Agent which tore all the freakin' time should become a thing of the past (the recent Alone in the Dark being a sorry exception). Uncharted has some nasty screen tearing from time to time but I found it bearable if not forgiveable, mainly because the game itself is otherwise excellent. I've no doubt that the sequel will be much improved in this area now that developers are becoming more familiar with the PS3's hardware. That said, I much prefer Insomniac's attitude to coding games as they admitted in a recent EG interview that they're technical perfections so tearing not likely to ever be a problem in any of their games. In fact, I still think that Ratchet & Clank ToD is one of the most polished and visually pleasing games on any current gen console so hopes are high for Resistance 2 and R&C Quest for Booty.

Unfortunately i think you'll find using extra CPU processor power will not remove screan tearing as it is a graphics processor problem. You need more GPU memory to buffer the video display to to help reduce the tearing. This is a graphics card problem.

@mingster - Yes but by offloading work from the GPU to the SPUs then you could feasibly reduce tearing because the GPU then has more processing power for doing whatever else it has to do. The article does mention this: "And part of the skill of developing for the PlayStation 3 is getting the GPU to farm jobs out to the six SPUs..." ;)

Also optimising the game engine can reduce the problem too... look at the differences between MotoGP 06 and MotoGP 07 for example, the latter of which is 100% tear free. Also the recent UT III on the 360 uses a later build of the UE3 than Gears of War and shows much less screen tearing.

Sony have some top people working on getting the most out of the CELL's SPU's. When I finished Uncharted, I spotted the name of RJ Mical amongst the huge list of names in the credits. This guy is familiar to anyone who had an Amiga.
Sure enough, it's the same guy. According to his web-site http://www.mical.org/ , he's doing "top secret stuff for Sony"

This guy eats, sleeps & drinks assembler and has been doing multi-threaded OS development for years.

I wonder how all the people who bought the console at launch feel about this "potential"

I guess that's why PS3 fanboys are so adamant they've backed the right horse - the long game. What a joke.

360 owners have had years of superior looking titles and the best response sony developers can come up with is.... "it's coming"

lol

@Zero Cool - You made some good points there about how Microsoft forced the current gen on us perhaps a bit early but then you oddly go onto say that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 are dated compared with a current PC! ;)

The truth is that console technolgy is static for the best part of five years so obviously PC tech is going to surpass them sooner rather than later. Back in early 2005, a console like the Xbox 360 with 512 MB of memory and a forward-thinking ATI GPU was better than most PCs of that time but as we now know the majority of games have issues running at 1280x720 nevermind 1920x1080. Most PCs have been able to run games at 1280x1024 (higher resolution than 720p) for the best part of a decade! LOL

lol@Zero_Cool

But what games can you play on it?? 360 ports (that don't run as well) and piss poor adventure games.

To be fair, it seems that it takes a couple of years after a consoles release before the manufacturers/developers release optimised analysis tools to see bottleneck, performance snapshots, etc. The PS2 did the same and as already mentioned, had some amazing games using power not even realised in the first 2-3 years. Whether the potential gets tapped, or whatever, but it can only be a good thing, eh? :)

Uncharted 2? Bring it on...

@ darren... its graphics MEMORY thats the issue not spare processor cycles. The PS3 needs more graphics memory. By optimizing your graphics ie: reducing texture sizes or hiding and removing unused vertices in polygons thereby making the amount of graphics memory needed less it in turn reduces screen tearing. If you had more graphics memory it would not be an issue.

This generation for me personally has been a disappointment, it simply came too quick as there was still life in last gen consoles i.e. the original Xbox and the PS2 (as sales and games still show).

I blame MS for putting out the 360 in a hurry to gain market share away from Sony (which didn't work), in turn it forced Nintendo and Sony to get there systems out as quickly as they could.


+1

themorganator has ruined my 5pm "moron prediction"

damn them

Then Thepissartist stormed in and made doubley sure your prediction was wrong.

I agree with the meh sentiments already expressed, but only reply to those who question the quality of Uncharted. It does have some technical issues, and it doesn't revolutionise any gameplay mechanics. But it is a bloody good game and looks stunning at times.

ps However, allow me one strong opinion: you can stick the PC as a viable alternative to console gaming. Geforce 8800 yawnathon whatevernogames.

lets just hope that they start using it properly then because i thought Unchartered looked a bit bollocks graphically and is one of the reasons i didn't bother buying it

ps However, allow me one strong opinion: you can stick the PC as a viable alternative to console gaming. Geforce 8800 yawnathon whatevernogames.

I do agree that the PC probably isn't an alternative to consoles. I dont agree with 'whatevernogames', you're just showing your ignorance there really.

I completely missed Thepissartist's post... I was too much in awe of themorganator's clearly superior games

@zero

The PS2 was also a dog to work with. It didn't stop Sony making the same (mistakes?) with the PS3. But we should add, it didn't stop developers eventually exploiting the PS2.

As for the PC stuff, sorry I can't go there with you. A console vs PC match on graphical specs alone is not a fair one. You have to the full package, the price, the games, the peripherals, the online service etc, the ease of use etc. To say console manufacturers have mugged all us console owners off is a little inflamatory. I'm very happy with my consoles, thank you very much. In the meantime my other half has just binned the £2k+ 3 year old PC for a new one because it was getting tired and was no longer meeting spec.

Perhaps horses for courses?

I was being lazy. The PC has games, just none that get my juices running.

mcbi4kh2

This generation is creating the largest profit out of any generation prior to it, month by month sales are up. It appears that innovation is pushing sales across all major formats (PS3/Wii/360). All of which are selling like hotcakes (software and hardware).

The PC, however, makes up only a very small fraction of the sales in the games industry today. As with your hairstyle; the PC is firmly stuck in the 90s.

Zero_Cool - sort out your punctuation and I may start taking you seriously.

In the meantime my other half has just binned the £2k+ 3 year old PC for a new one because it was getting tired and was no longer meeting spec.

Binned a 2k PC? Are you exagerating, if you're not you had your pants pulled down?

A 2k PC 3 years ago would probably have a 7800gt and p4 prescott? Would easily run Crysis well.

@k109

Thanks for that insight. Perhaps you can use this talent and post this weekends lottery numbers for us all too?

@zero

Are you baiting for a AAA console exclusive list of games vs AAA PC exclusive are you?

Zero_cool wrote: "I blame MS for putting out the 360 in a hurry to gain market share away from Sony (which didn't work)"

Actually it did. Both Microsoft and Nintendo have a significantly better share of the market this gen than they had last gen.

"in turn it forced Nintendo and Sony to get there systems out as quickly as they could."

That's just not true my friend.

Sony and Nintendo had their own plans for their consoles, plans which had nothing to do with MS. Someone had to be first, and in this case it was MS, but both Sony and Nintendo launched when THEY were ready, neither were forced to launch their console before it's time.

Zero_cool also wrote: "As for the PS3's power, IMO it's not any better than the 360. The two are that tied together it's difficult to differentiate between them....On the other hand, the PS3 is just a cunt to work with. It's funny because when the PSone was released, developers were praising the system for it's easy to develop for."

On that, I do agree. :)

Although we can't guarantee that Sony will learn from their mistakes with the PS3 for the PS4 (as peterfil pointed out in his reply already).

The PC, however, makes up only a very small fraction of the sales in the games industry today. As with your hairstyle; the PC is firmly stuck in the 90s.

Looks around the room *how does he know about my hair*.

I said:
PC probably isn't an alternative to consoles

But it does have a lot of excellent games. Whats your point?

@mcbi4kh2

Sorry, it's not been........ binned exactly. It's going into the living room for "web browsing". But yeah, apparently it didn't cut it no more. I expect you're right, it would run Crysis. It's got that SLI dual card architecture thing. I will tell you this; it's got terrible terrible Windows rot. We've reinstalled Windows a couple of times and after a few weeks it didn't seem to make much difference.

Anyway, my other half is a WoW addict. I'm a WoW widow. We've very split on our preferred platforms, but harmonious in most other things.

@Bloodkult: That is amazing! :D

@peterfll

This will cure your windows rot:

http://www.wowwiki.com/Linux/Wine

"Absolutely, PC's have been running higher resolutions than consoles for years. For Microsoft and Sony to call the PS3/360 next gen is a bit of an insult to a PC gamer (in fact, all gamers in general)."

/sigh

In what way is it an insult to anyone? Seriously, what is insulting about calling this generation of consoles next gen, given that it is the next generation after the previous one. Who would find that insulting except for the most thin skinned and paranoid of gamers?

LinixNOOOO!

;)

mingster: Well, graphic memory is harsh mistress :-P I think this is where a lot of optimization can really improve things.

If you are interested (though in that case you probably already know about all the current hw) search some benchmarks/tests concerning latest ATi 512 MB GPUs running texture-memory hungry games (Oblivion with Quarl texture mod for example - using up to 768 MB of textures) - they are running perfectly fine, even though the card has only 512 MB of memory. Seems that those stories that ATi heavily optimized memory management were not just plain PRs... In other words, optimization > raw memory (if you have reached the necessary minimum breakpoint of course).

Zero_Cool - punctuation and grammer are two different things.

mcbi4kh2 - least you're able to take a joke. I'm sorry though, I seriously don't feel that the PC is relevant at the moment (this is cemented by the fact John Carmack is concentrating on consoles for id's next engine). I'm a former PC gamer/builder, turned console gamer.

@Thepissartist

I, like you, used to be a PC gamer. As soon as I finished uni and got a job as a programmer the last thing I want to do when I get home is sit at a PC. Otherwise I would still be playing.

I dont know whow you can say that the PC is currently irelevant though.

Currently there are 10 million subscribers to WoW.
On average there are about 800,000 - 1,000,000 different people signed into steam at any given time.

Also PC's are, have always and will always be the best place to play a FPS.

They just appeal to different markets, which is what I meant when I said they're not really an alternative to consoles.

More like PissHead lolamiright!

Dude, the whole industry can't hang on one game.

I agree PCs/consoles appeal to different markets, it's just consoles really do make up for about 90% of that market. I think it's a saddening fact that the PC is going for low power internet based games, but I totally see why it's happening (who has the inclination to spend £300 on a GPU?).

We'll see how things progress in the next decade, but I'm fairly sure that innovation will come before ghz. That's why I'm a console gamer (I've also enjoyed more games this generation than any before it).

"The PC, however, makes up only a very small fraction of the sales in the games industry today."

Yeah, there are only millions of WoW subscribers and millions of people playing other MMO games generating hundreds of millions every year from subs alone. And there's only millions of Steam users. And never mind that the sales figures so often touted as evidence of the demise of PC gaming ignore download sales and MMO subs, and also discount sales from smaller retailers. PC games clearly make no money at all!

"(who has the inclination to spend £300 on a GPU?)."

And there it is, the old 'you need a £300 graphics card to play PC games'. Your opinion is not even worth considering.

Dude, the whole industry can't hang on one game.

Never said it did, that was just an example.

Anyway, home time. I might give a longer answer tomorrow.

fuk PC, im not waiting a year to play Gears of War 2, no fuking way

Is there a potentiometer to measure unused "potential" in consoles?

If there's under-utilised or under-used or not-quite-there-yet potential in one platform, isn't it equally true of all of them at this stage in their life-cycles?

"The PC, however, makes up only a very small fraction of the sales in the games industry today. As with your hairstyle; the PC is firmly stuck in the 90s."

According to EA (Well, according to Eurogamers quote), PC games sales are much, much higher than XBox360 and Wii games sales.
Which, by your argument, makes the 360 pretty much redundant? :P

2006 repeating itself for Sony developers,Kutaragi was right PS3 is 4D machine...

And part of the skill of developing for the PlayStation 3 is getting the GPU to farm jobs out to the six SPUs - seeing which SPUs are idling and can take up some of the slack in a frame-to-frame kind of way,"

Yawn. This has been the mythical goal since the PS3 came out. The problem is that this approach leads to unknown performance as you can't guarantee if an SPU will be available when needed and if not, things need to stall while waiting or quality needs to be lowered as operations are missed.

These are basically statements made by a designer who doesn't actually understand the architecture well enough to realise the statements are nonsense.

When you have a chance to talk to someone at NG surely you can shoehorn in the question.. "What are you guys working on now?"

Uncharted is fantastic but what's coming next, is it Uncharted2 or a Jak and Daxter game maybe...

PearOfAnguish . i would say a HD4850 range of card is the minimum today for the PC before you have to start turning down details etc. And you are correct that that sits at around £120. But you also need a good CPU as more and more games tend to become CPU-bound as you go up in resolution/details. That's at least another £115-120 (Q6600 or E8400). and then its memory, motherboard, PSU, good hard drive, the OS etc. It mounts up. It's true that saying you need a £300 video card to play todays games is wrong but you cannot pretend that PC's are cheap either.

You also have to think about how long you want the card to last. A HD4850 today will last for about 1 year before it will struggle with newer games and you will have to turn the details etc. down. But that's also the PC's strenght. Even if your hardware is getting old you can usually play newer games, you just have to turn down the details a bit or turn off AA/AF or turn down the resolution. And not all new games are pushing the system to the limit.

I review hardware so I have great systems includding the latest video cards and regularly benchmark these system against both older and newer games. To say that a 3 year old video card like the 7950 can handle Crysis fine is just a joke. If anything that game, even with the newest cards, needs to be reduced in detail and resolution to play it at a satisfactory speed. Medium without any AA/AF usually is fine. It looks great but got quite a lot of popup.

So the PC has some nice strenghs there even though it also cost more and you have to keep it current with drivers, reinstallation of Windows from time to time etc.

Consoles have their strenghs to. While I cannot be certain my older rigs (including my relatively new Mac Book Pro) run certain games i always know that the game I buy for the PS3 or the 360 (or even my Wii) will work exactly as it will work for everyone else. An example, when the MMORG Conan comes out for the 360 I will buy it for the 360 since I have big issues getting it to run well on my GeForce Go 8600 that sits in my Mac Book pro. I have to turn the details down a ton and still it's slieshow a lot of the times. On the other hand one of my main systems can run it better than the 360 will do as they ahve much beter hardware - but that hardware does cost more money.

So, as a long long time computer/PC gamer I've almost exclusively moved to gaming on the consoles when possible as it simply, for me personally, is more hasslefree while still giving me a great experience. But that does not mean the PC is dooooomed. It's jsut a personal preference.

I'ts pretty interesting visiting different countries and see how games are sold. Here in Sweden the console shelfs are huge and the PC-section in most stores are now much much smaller. The times I've visited the US the last few years I've seen stores that no longer even stock PC-games, and if they do only old ones. In Germany on the other hand the PC-shelfs are much bigger while the console-shelfs are smaller. So I guess its hard to say "PC gaming is dying or PC gaming is not dying" globally as there is lots of different markets.

As for the topic for the article. Of course no game is tapping the full potential of a console (or gaming-rig). There is always optimizations that can be done, new techniques that are created etc. which will make the "next" game often better than the previous one. While U ncharted was a great game I must personally say it wasn't THAT good. Graphics were great but nothing spectacular, gameplay was good but nothin spectacular. It was a great game and I expect them to tap even more on the next game from the PS3.

"According to EA (Well, according to Eurogamers quote), PC games sales are much, much higher than XBox360 and Wii games sales. Which, by your argument, makes the 360 pretty much redundant? :P "

Isn't EA the publisher for the Sims? I wonder how much money they get from that one .... heck, the IKEA furnitures for Sims2 took top spot in many countries :). Talk about gold mine .....

Seriously though i would expect EA to get much money from the PC as they publish several high-profile PC-games (Crysis and The Sims comes to mind). They should keep doing well with games like Spore.

/B

"Uncharted used less than half PS3's power "

LOL, Fuck off. That is all.

Odd they couldn't fix the awful tearing, then.

Yes Swedbear, I review hardware too so I'm fully aware of the cost and life expectancy of PC components. The major difference with a PC, though, is that it has other uses, few of us have a system that's purely for gaming. That's an important factor for developers to take into consideration; so long as they don't have a title with completely outlandish requirements they've got a potential market that dwarfs any console. This is great for casual devs and download services. And even when there is a game with high requirements and apparent niche appeal it can still perform well - Crysis sold upwards of 1.5m copies worldwide despite EA and Crytek's whining about piracy.

Fact is, PC games sales account for a healthy percentage of the overall market, but the problem is there's no PC PR rep to stand up for it when we're subjected to an annual 'PC gaming is dead' sales report (which inevitably focuses on the US market and ignores downloads, casual games, MMO subs and the huge European audience).

And you really don't need the latest hardware to play new games so long as you don't demand they be run at the highest settings. Friend of mine has an FX-55, 2GB RAM and some ancient NVIDIA card (I think it might even be a Ti4600) and he's recently played through Crysis, Bioshock and CoD4 without any complaints.