Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round 20

By Richard Leadbetter Published 18 June, 2009

Ghostbusters, Prototype, Bionic Commando, FUEL, Wolverine, Red Faction.

We've reached a new Face-Off milestone as the series reaches its 20th compilation-based instalment and with it, Eurogamer is happy to reveal that its coverage has evolved once more. Our comparison features have traditionally been rich with video and screenshot-based assets that are the best they can be possibly be, but with the arrival of this landmark, the brand new Eurogamer HD video player comes into play, giving you the choice of watching either the cropped 1:1 pixel-mapped embedded video streams, or else a higher-quality 720p presentation.

Just click the HD button where appropriate to get the full picture. It's worth pointing out that the default setting for the HD player is 960x540, with the 720p encoding scaled down to fit the window. To bypass this resizing, hit the full-screen button at the bottom of the screen. CPU-rending h264 encoding techniques, combined with running the full 60Hz output of each console at 50 per cent speed, allows us to retain enough quality to make the comparison videos actually work, and now you get to see the full picture. Every frame, every pixel. Nice.

Onto the games then - a six-strong line-up of the most recent high-profile releases. All killer, no filler!

Thanks, as always, to my Digital Foundry associates, MazingerDUDE and Alex Goh for the additional observations and help in putting the feature together.

Ghostbusters: The Video Game

Here's a mystery from the files of Arthur C Clarke... just why did Sony Europe end up with timed exclusivity rights to Ghostbusters: The Video Game? Away from any warm and happy feelings I might have for the 25-year-old movie, I can't help but feel that the game itself is distinctly average - almost last-gen in terms of its basic gameplay. And rather embarrassingly, it's the poorest PS3 conversion I've seen for a long, long time - a disappointing reminder of how just how terrible cross-platform development could treat the PS3 back in 2006.

Indeed, Ghostbusters: The Video Game is quite remarkable in that it manages to tick off just about all the common failings of PS3 conversion work of the period. Probably the most impactful compromise has been to the resolution of the game. The "no you can't have it yet" Xbox 360 version runs at full 720p and is a reasonably pleasing game to look at. PlayStation 3 on the other hand gets a whopping great drop to 960x540 resolution, and a correspondingly heavy blur as the framebuffer is scaled up to work on your HD display. This is compounded by the quincunx anti-aliasing technique, which blurs the entire texture, as a by-product of its edge-smoothing. quincunx can work acceptably well (see Prototype for an example in this feature) but combined with the lower resolution its negative effects are amplified significantly.

Check out the difference in the video here. It's well worth clicking through for the HD version which removes the crop and shows you the full picture with no loss in quality.

On some titles that upscale like this (Silent Hill: Homecoming springs to mind), there is a corresponding increase in refresh rate as the GPU obviously has less work to do in more complex scenes. However, in the case of Ghostbusters, performance in this area is remarkably similar, with small fluctuations sometimes favouring 360, sometimes PS3. Tellingly though, both versions have issues sustaining a fluid 30FPS when there's a modicum of action on-screen. In the like-for-like video captures there are more torn frames in the PS3 game, but then again, image quality and consistency in both versions can suffer badly in places from the lack of v-sync.

Not only is resolution compromised on the PS3 version, so is texture quality. Again it's vintage 2006 as we see visibly more detailed texture work on many graphical elements in the Xbox 360 version of the game. It's not just the odd piece of scenery here and there, or detail you need to walk right up to in order to see the difference (a la Fallout 3). The lower resolution presentation impacts a majority of scenes in the game.

PS3 also has the dubious honour of a 3.9GB mandatory installation. In theory this means that the game can stream in more texture detail than the 360 version, in a shorter amount of time, but clearly we don't see that. Indeed, the lower quality video assets actually take much the same time to load as the more complex and memory-intensive 360 data does from the DVD.

As it is, having tweeted my dismay about this game two days ago when I was still doing the analysis work for this feature, Joystiq, to its credit, picked up the baton and got this statement from a spokesperson for the developer:

"For the record, the PS3 version is softer due to the 'quincunx' anti-aliasing filter and the fact we render at about 75 per cent the resolution of the 360 version. So you cannot directly compare a screenshot of one to the other unless you scale them properly. The PS3 does have less available RAM than the 360 - but we managed to squeeze three out of four textures as full size on the PS3."

My response to that is pretty straightforward. First of all, PS3 Ghostbusters is rendering 518,400 pixels per frame. Xbox 360 is managing 921,600, so there's some interesting mathematics going on in that statement. Secondly, if quincunx anti-aliasing is compromising your image quality to this degree, why not try another solution? With regards the RAM situation, it's a well-known limitation that the vast majority of cross-platform developers have (thankfully) managed to overcome.

The admission that 25 per cent of the texture work in Ghostbusters is compromised on PS3 is very telling. More than that, the notion that somehow we're not allowed to compare the two versions without downscaling the higher resolution one is frankly astonishing. How many people out there have 540p displays? Perhaps we should we be sitting further away from the screen to make the two games look the same? Terminal Reality's response, rather like the PS3 build itself, simply isn't good enough.

Prototype

Leaving the ghosts of cross-platform development in the past, we return to the present and a release from Radical Entertainment that is far more indicative of the current state of play. In common with the rest of the games covered in this feature (bar Bionic Commando) it's a case that while performance metrics give a technical victory to the Xbox 360 game, the all-important gameplay experience is, by and large, equally as satisfying on either platform.

Graphically speaking, Prototype's biggest compromise is equally impactful on both consoles, the game running at a native resolution of 1120x640, manifesting in a detail drop from traditional 720p similar to the likes of the recent GRIN games, Halo 3 and Saints Row 2. Jaggies are mitigated thanks to the inclusion of anti-aliasing solutions on both platforms - the usual 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing on Xbox 360 and quincunx on PS3. A look at the HD video and the comparison gallery should be enough to show you that while quincunx blur does have an impact, in some cases it can work out fine, as it does here. Prototype eschews high frequency texture detail for the most part, so the effect of the blur isn't quite so noticeable as it is in other games.

Probably the biggest difference you'll see concerns how well each version maintains v-sync - the 360 game is clearly a lot better at it, tearing relatively rarely, whereas the PS3 game loses v-sync and drops frames more regularly. Other differences tend to be somewhat less important to the overall presentation, but intriguing nonetheless. There is a significantly shorter draw distance for shadows on PS3, and crowd members in the environment tend to be duplicated a lot more than they are on 360.

On the plus side, self-shadowing on the PS3 models looks a touch more refined and we spotted higher anistropic filtering on the Sony platform too. Debris on the ground also has more depth on PS3, each piece of rubble being individually shadowed. This could be a distinct decision by the developers at Radical, or else it may simply be an offset bias issue for the shadowmaps that could be fixed on the 360 build simply by raising the rubble an inch or two off the ground and letting the lighting model do the rest (for the record, the PC version works just like the 360 game).

Either way, all of these different plus and minus points do at least strongly suggest that the code was tweaked to get additional features from the respective consoles, however slight, but in terms of the gameplay, the smoothness of the update and the corresponding response from the controls, it is the Xbox 360 game that has an overall consistency that gives it a small advantage.

Bionic Commando

If there's one big gaming mystery even more bizarre than Sony Europe's decision to snaffle Ghostbusters: The Video Game as a timed exclusive, it's probably the reasoning behind Capcom's decision to make the Bionic Commando multiplayer demo on Xbox Live the only way in which to sample this new game before its release. Basic, derivative and graphically uninteresting, the demo is completely at odds with the single-player experience of the retail release in just about every regard. Bearing in mind the dubious demo, along with GRIN's previous efforts in Wanted: Weapons of Fate, it's fair to say that the undoubted quality of Bionic Commando was probably the most pleasant surprise I had in putting this feature together. It's a very decent game!

Just like Wanted, Bionic Commando runs on GRIN's own proprietary Diesel Engine, and there are a number of technical elements the game has in common with its less impressive cousin. Firstly is the sub-HD resolution; both console versions run at a less-than-stellar 1120x640, with no frame rate lock - so, depending on the complexity of the scene, the game runs at anything from the mid-20s up to 60FPS (albeit very rarely). There is the sense that the PS3 version is smoother (in actual fact, frame-rate analysis shows a plus/minus variance of around ten per cent in favour of either platform at any given point), but more than that, image quality overall is beefed up considerably thanks to the implementation of v-sync, omitted on Xbox 360 and thus tearing badly as a result.

Where the Microsoft console pulls back some points is in the utilisation of screen-space ambient occlusion - an effect that adds additional depth to any given scene. The overall effect is subtle, but becomes far more obvious to the eye when it is removed. Also apparent is that GRIN has set about reworking some of the textures in the 360 build, adding extra detail where less exists in the PS3 version. While this could be considered an advantage for the Microsoft console, it's fair to say that its inclusion appears to be in place in lieu of some of the other graphical effects that only the PlayStation 3 version brings to the table.

In particular are more refined normal maps and specular effects you'll only see on PS3, but of far more dramatic impact is the inclusion of what looks like proper high dynamic range lighting that is exclusive to the Sony platform. All of this, combined with the v-sync, works to make the PS3 version of Bionic Commando look a touch more pleasing to the eye. While the Xbox 360 version is a fine game that still looks lovely and has some "exclusives" of its own, the improved bling and solid image consistency make the decision easy if you own both consoles and are wondering which version to buy. Despite the inclusion of a 1.8GB mandatory installation, it's got to be PS3.

For a bit more technical detail, combined with additional screenshots not found in the Eurogamer comparison gallery, be sure to check out the work of my colleague over at the Digital Foundry blog.

FUEL

Assessing FUEL from a gameplay perspective, I can't find much to fault in Tom's review, despite the strident nature of some of the follow-up comments from Eurogamers. FUEL allegedly boasts the biggest open-world yet devised, but the plain and simple fact of the matter is that unfortunately, it's simply not a very interesting one. The best sandbox games are based on a man-made landscape designed to be fun to play, with plenty to see and do. FUEL, on the other hand, bears all the hallmarks of being mathematically generated - in effect, the shape and form of the landscape is most likely based on the result of a complex equation rather than being completely sculpted by human hands.

With this in mind, peering at the Blu-ray PS3 version, I was only a little surprised when I saw that the total data use of the 25GB BD is a mere 3.3GB. If you have the required development/PS3 TEST hardware, you can even run this game from a common or garden single-layer DVD-R should you have a penchant for old-skool optical discs. Perhaps more surprising still is the fact that 2.2GB of that data is then force-installed on your PS3, presumably to make the process of streaming the landscape easier for the developer. This does give the game a loading (or rather, "generating") advantage on PS3, which is negated on 360 should you choose an NXE hard disk install which weighs in at just 4.2GB.

Surprisingly, main review code for FUEL was supplied in the form of the PS3 version. We sourced the 360 version from retail, and it is technically the better-performing game. While both appear to be rendering true 720p (albeit with an unwelcome blur filter that we assume is there to mask the lack of anti-aliasing on both platforms), the Xbox 360 game feels smoother, with more responsive controls, only dipping below 30FPS when a lot of alpha effects are in play (for example, with the stormy weather). Both games lack v-sync, and the resultant tearing is much more apparent on PS3, making it look slightly rougher compared to the 360 code.

So while the Xbox 360 version of FUEL has a small but tangible technical edge over the PlayStation 3 release, it makes little odds really. A 5/10 game that runs a touch smoother on one platform has to offer much more to lift its overall score and FUEL remains a rather disappointing release despite the small performance hike.

The tracks in many events are overlong, gameplay is repetitive, and AI remains predictable - a case of catching up with the CPU-driven cars, overtaking them and then merely extending your lead. There's no real sense of actual racing here on either platform which is somewhat surprising considering how hard Codemasters works to get that particular element into its own in-house racing titles. While the smaller, lap-based closed-circuit races are more exciting, gameplay-wise, Black Rock Studios' Pure has the better of this in almost every way and while it lacks the biggest open-world in video games, it makes up for it with oodles more fun. The fact that you can pick it up online for less than a tenner makes it something of a no-brainer.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

X-Men Origins: Wolverine does much to endear itself to me right from the off. Forget the concept of a mandatory installation, Raven has instead opted for a stealth approach which sees the game gradually fill up to around 1GB of your hard disk space as you play. If you don't have a large enough buffer for this behind-the-scenes streaming, the game tells you, but crucially doesn't stop you playing.

The more I play Wolverine, the more I like it, to the point where I think perhaps the 5/10 score was harsh. Sure, it's short-lived and repetitive, but it captures the essence of the character perfectly and builds a memorable gameplay experience around that. Marvel's most infamous mutant is essentially an almost unstoppable killing machine, and Raven's notion of inserting that creation into a God of War-esque game is a stroke of brilliance. There are two things that stand out for me with this game: firstly, and perhaps rather bizarrely, it's the way that the easy mode is the default difficulty setting.

Sure, you can rip that to shreds, but that's kind of the point. That's Wolverine, that's what it's all about. It makes killing joyously simple to the point where you end up devising more interesting ways of carrying out the job to amuse yourself. Over and above that is the way that the game powers you up and equips you with powers and skills that allow you to handle practically any combat situation, and handle it with style. Again, classic Wolverine.

The good news is that with some notable, but minor, exceptions, the game is essentially like-for-like on both console platforms, perhaps not so surprising bearing in mind that Raven licensed Epic's Unreal Engine 3 for this eye-wateringly bloodthirsty death spree.

Raven's work with this Wolverine tie-in shows a utilisation of the Unreal Engine 3 technology that compares very closely with the recent UE3-driven Wheelman project. In-game action is very close indeed between the two platforms, and certainly from a gameplay perspective both versions feel almost like-for-like. Also in common with Wheelman, both versions aspire to a 30FPS refresh rate but do have trouble sustaining it, though 360 clearly gets closer to the ideal.

In-game and cinematic performance mirrors what we found in the playable demo, which we covered in more depth over on the Digital Foundry blog (worth checking out simply because the comparison video we produced there is absolutely mental). In short, rather bizarrely, the PS3 version runs more smoothly during certain cinematics, while the Xbox 360 rendition generally tends to perform better, and with far fewer torn frames during the actual gameplay.

You'll see minor lighting differences, plus the Microsoft platform once again includes anti-aliasing absent on the PS3 build - all of which combines to give the Xbox 360 a marginal, but tangible, technical victory in this particular comparison. But in terms of the more important factor - the bloodthirsty thrill of the commandeering the world's most finely tuned killer - that's equally as enjoyable on either platform.

Red Faction: Guerrilla

Not since Criterion's Black has a game been so focused on the joys of rampant, unadulterated destruction, and with that in mind Volition deserves kudos for what it has achieved here - Red Faction Guerrilla is a tremendous technical achievement that is at times staggeringly impressive. What is the all the more noteworthy is just how much of an upgrade Guerrilla appears to be when stacked up against the studio's previous cross-format release, Saints Row 2.

Let's just say that SR2 has its issues - eye-rending screen tear, sub-HD resolution on both platforms, frame-rate issues, certain effects pared back on PS3... it wasn't pretty. Red Faction is a leap forward on almost all counts, but perhaps most pertinent is the clear evidence that Volition has performance-tuned the game to run almost identically cross-platform, and while the core experience is pretty much the same, there are plus and minus points to both of the conversions.

First up, the good news after the disappointment of Saints Row 2 is that the resolution is back up to 720p on both platforms, and in a game like this, with all that intricate detail, that's something of a relief. Xbox 360 gets superior edge smoothing in the form 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing, up against the PS3 version which has none at all. However, the bloom effects and overall lighting do a lot to take the edge off the landscape detail edges in particular so the difference is nowhere near as pronounced as it can be in some games.

The Xbox 360 leads the way in other areas too - a higher-resolution blending buffer gives better definition to the explosions and other transparent alpha effects compared to the lower-res PS3 buffer. In a game where blowing things up is part and parcel to the fun, you'd think it would have much more impact than it does, but the impact is barely noticeable (even Killzone 2 uses the same lower-resolution buffer technique). The Microsoft platform also benefits from higher resolution ground textures, but really the difference is barely noticeable. Other than that, the only other real point of differentiation is the hard disk utilisation - a mandatory 1.65GB on PS3, with an optional 6.5GB on 360 via an NXE install.

Probably the biggest issue I have with the game concerns the lack of v-sync. The tearing is pretty bad here to the point where in most cases every other frame is torn, making a huge impact on visual consistency, especially during those outrageous explosions. The HD video shows the entire 60Hz output of the consoles, slowed down to 50 per cent speed, with no frames dropped in the encoding. In short, you don't miss anything, so you can judge for yourself just how much of an impact this has. However, as it is, both versions are equally afflicted.

In common with the best cross-platform multiplayer games, the choice of which version to buy should you happen to own both machines really comes down to where your friends list is. Guerrilla is excellent fun online, and getting the most out of that experience is more important than minor differences to visuals.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (174) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • StooMonster #1 3 years ago

    Another interesting article by Richard Leadbetter, I like these technical comparisons. :)

  • Rizo #2 3 years ago

    Who won?

  • skillian #3 3 years ago

    No big deal, maybe this milestone should be the point you stop putting "Round X" at the end?

    It's not like these articles are sequels, or that I need to read the other 19 first. It just sounds a bit odd, unless you start counting your reviews and news articles too :/

  • Xerx3s #4 3 years ago

    Wasn't that Ghostbusters developer banging on about how much better the ps3 was and how much better the game would be on the ps3 because it had the ps3 as lead platform?

    Developerinps3rulesbecausewegetpaidbysonylol?

  • El-Dev #5 3 years ago

    Bar Ghostbusters I wouldn't consider buying any of these games.

  • Number1Laing #6 3 years ago

    Any chance of us getting a Sacred 2 comparison?

    BTW, Terminal Reality should be ashamed of themselves for foisting that PS3 version onto customers. It's embarrassing. Every other developer has figured this out and TR is still taking their cues from the Darkness and Double Agent ports.

  • gohda #7 3 years ago

    ps3 rocks

  • IneptPercy #8 3 years ago

    I do wish they would compare PC versions where they can. PC versions are usually better but its nice to check.

  • DFawkes #9 3 years ago

    Red Faction is one of the few games I've played that actually looks noticably better on one of my consoles, in this case PS3. I appreciate that's just on my set-up though, not advice I'd pass on to someone else. The install is the deal breaker for me though, I hate games that install on PS3 so I don't even bother buying them anymore.

    Apart from that, nice to see it's closer than it used to be, with most nearly like-for-like. Thanks to them leaving out Ghostbusters at least :p

  • Lutz #10 3 years ago

    1000 comments, easily.

    Rizo: Just read the Ghostbusters piece, that should tell you.

  • berelain #11 3 years ago

    Nice article, although I'm a little confused- when I put Red Faction: Guerilla in my TV informs me its running at 1080p. Is there some kind of upscaling going on with it?

    @IneptPercy - the problem with comparing PC verisons is what hardware do you put it on? Every single person will have a different spec for their PC, so it will never be representative of what the average person will see on their machine at home. Certainly from the perspective of my creaky old rig, I don't really want to see and hear how marvellously wonderfully brilliant a game looks running on the Most Expensive Rig Known To Man with 18 million graphics processors. These console face offs, however, are at least a good representation of what you'll get a home should you opt to buy the game on either format.

  • Widge #12 3 years ago

    Terminal Reality's response needs to be framed and mounted in the Hall of Lol

  • megastar #13 3 years ago

    owning both consoles I can honestly say I prefer the look of the PS3 version of Ghostbusters. Looks more natural to me

  • JonFE #14 3 years ago

    I wished console makers could put v-sync option on the video console settings and force developers adhere to it... Screen tearing is such a killjoy; yes, Resident Evil 5, I'm looking at you :-(
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 13:45

  • IneptPercy #15 3 years ago

    Not wishing to start a PC debate kind of thing, but usually eurogamer do use there 'standard' gaming PC based on a 8800GT etc and maybe something stronger. I know its not an exact science but its more looking for better textures etc, increases in AA and resolution are more down to the PC.

    As for the 360 vs PS3 thing, it seemed PS3 versions where catching up... maybe not.

  • Ryze #16 3 years ago

    Yay!

    /reads

    /popcorn

    edit:

    I'd say it would all depend on how much resource in terms of time / money / people you have to throw at the PS3 version that would matter the most.

    You're really reinventing the wheel to get the most out of it in many cases.

    btw: This happened back in 1995 with Saturn vs Playstation - the boot's on the other foot now.
    Edited by 2 at 18/06/09 @ 13:51

  • Widge #17 3 years ago

    Natural? No it really does look sub par. I've seen loads of these where if you take the machine logo away, I'd have no idea which was which, but this is just blatant.

  • Widge #18 3 years ago

    I find it baffling how they had to ditch PC multiplayer too!

  • mowgli #19 3 years ago

    I hope Sony feel pretty embarrassed for their exclusivity deal right about now.

  • chubster2010 #20 3 years ago

    Never was so much time wasted on something so pointless....

    I'm not doubting that there are differences between the two formats of any game, but whenever I've watched comparison videos over on Gametrailers, the difference between most games is....to be blunt....laughable. That Eurogamer feel the need to spend the time and effort minutely assessing the smallest details is quite depressing.

    Its all about the games people...not bump-mapping and v-sync yadda yadda yadda.

    Yawn.

  • Ryze #21 3 years ago

    @mowgli

    I reckon it all depends on the sales figures over the next few months... I can't see anyone buying a PS3 in mid-summer just to get the new Ghostbusters game, though...

  • Wastelander #22 3 years ago

    But these articles ARE about the bump-mapping and v-sync.
    If it doesn't interest you, why comment?

  • smirny #23 3 years ago

    obviously the xbox is going to be performing better at the moment, it's been "maxed out" remember...

  • chubster2010 #24 3 years ago

    @ Wastelander

    Why iindeed. You're right - I've wasted enough time here already....

    Right - I'm off to enjoy playing some games instead of frittering my life away on Spec-Trumps....

  • jaguarwong #25 3 years ago

    Great article as always - factual and informative.

    I'm particularly glad that Richard makes the effort to point out all factors (as evidenced at the end of the Red Faction piece) and not just technical ones.

    Great stuff.

  • Kenshin001 #26 3 years ago

    My God, the PS3 version of Ghostbusters looks like Prototype!

  • Dave52 #27 3 years ago

    Once again, with the exception of Ghostbusters, I really can't see much of a difference. And what's with the Ghostbusters thing anyway, how come Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog et al can get the PS3 looking sweet but not the developers of Ghostbusters?

    Looks dreadful, still I wasn't gonna buy the game anyway.

  • rumrum4444 #28 3 years ago



    Another xbox 360 win again, then !



    .

  • GamesConnoisseur #29 3 years ago

    Note re the screen tearings; X360 doesnt it have exclusivity on it as PS3 suffers it worse in Prototype according to EG (v-sync issues) but nevertheless, v-sync should be on at all the times or at least GIVING the gamers option to choose v sync OR frame rates loss.

    Ghostbuster having less texture quality AND lower resolution on PS3 but preferred as looking more 'natural'?! Why not go away and play N64 games if you into that!! A shameful disadvantage to PS3 as not achieving parity with X360 BUT yet getting a timed exclusivity?

    Ironic?!

    Mad... I m importing X360 version me. Voting with my wallet!

    EDIT: People reading through the whole article would conclude X360 is still having the advantages and edging over PS3 in an overall content. HOWEVER negibile differences to most people but as previously said by others, useful mainly for the multi platform owners.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 14:27

  • BartonFink #30 3 years ago

    At 20-0 surely there is no need for these articles anymore? Why not just include the comparison with the review of the game?

  • mashk #31 3 years ago

    I like these articles. They validate me in my console of choice. If only Eurogamer was around in the heady days of the C64 vs Speccy arguments circa 1987.

    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 14:32

  • Paulanator #32 3 years ago

    @evilfoxhound

    Why don't you just install the game to your hard drive then?

  • Erebu #33 3 years ago

    I guess the better graphics are the reason why the X360 GPU gets hot as hell and kills the box.

  • MattRobson #34 3 years ago

    Xbox shots just look a little bit darker to me nothing else noticeable to my untrained eye.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 14:51

  • o_ci2007 #35 3 years ago

    what about including wii games as well?

  • 3william56 #36 3 years ago

    I demand a Gunstar Heroes face off.

  • BartonFink #37 3 years ago

    Why can't we include the Wii and make it a three way fight?

    Now that would be hilarious can you imagine the train wreck. Still it would probably boost hits.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 14:53

  • agparrot #38 3 years ago

    lolz all u peeeplw wot hatez PSfree u just forgottin that Teh Nextgenerazion starts wen sony sez it does n they ain't sed it yet!

    M$lulz

  • drumbaby #39 3 years ago

    "Despite the inclusion of a 1.8GB mandatory installation, it's got to be PS3."

    Fuck me...that must have hurt you, EG...best have a lie down m8.

  • Syrette #40 3 years ago

    Fucking Xbots.

  • GamerG #41 3 years ago

    Wow even PS3 lead Sku games (Ghostbusters) http://tinyurl.com/bt25tc end up better on Microsofts beast of a machine,

    Kudos to Microsoft's engineers who brought out a machine a year ahead of Sony's and 3 years down the line is still out pacing its far more expensive rival!

    Just need to get the Q&A sorted for launch next time fella's!

  • youhavenomail #42 3 years ago

    There really is no difference between the two formats worth talking about in any of those videos apart from the Ghostbusters one.

  • Garulon #43 3 years ago

    Where's wotzisface? You know that guy who thought the power of CELL would start shining through about a year ago? Has he hung himself in a closet or something? It's the only reason I bother with these comments, it's obvious by now which is the better gaming architecture. Come on whatever your name was, I need my Iraqi Information Minister fix!
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 16:09

  • migasUK #44 3 years ago

    360 still ruling...

  • Dave52 #45 3 years ago

    @Garulon: "Come on whatever your name was, I need my Iraqi Information Minister fix!"

    Ha ha, Comical Ali... classic!

    "it's obvious by now which is the better gaming architecture."

    I'm not so sure. If you look at the results from certain developers, the PS3 has been amazing. I guess it's a more difficult beast to develop on, and the Ghostbusters people have made an arse of it.

  • Garulon #46 3 years ago

    "you look at the results from certain developers, the PS3 has been amazing."

    There's really nothing in any listed firstparty title on the PS3 that the 360 can't do, you're treating them as "amazing" because there's nothing identical to compare against. Not that I'm slagging off Sony's firstparty efforts by any means, they're mostly technically stunning, but these games really are money-no-object stuff that tied up really skilled developers for years. And every single one so far has stiffed in the charts, so I'm not sure how many more Sony's got in them.

  • El-Dev #47 3 years ago

    "And every single one so far has stiffed in the charts, so I'm not sure how many more Sony's got in them."

    Shit loads, did you not see E3.

    I think they should do more of comparing exclusives of a similar nature, so KZ2 against Gears and Halo, Forza vs GT etc to show the tech involved in each. For me that is more relevant as the manufacturers have greater control over their 1st party devs.

  • Widge #48 3 years ago

    I think it was the DEVS who were going on about it. And then backpedalled with the excuse-a-thon.

  • chessboxer #49 3 years ago

    It all comes down to ability and willingness to learn (I'm looking at Valve) when PS3 developing. Yeah Sony's first party games are technically extremely good, but some 3rd party devs (let's look at Criterion) can pull of some amazing code work.

    Haven't some devs have said that they find it easier to code for the PS3 than the 360? I'm pretty sure they had a history in PC gaming. Ultimately I think all 3rd part devs need to know that they have to approach the PS3 completely differently than a PC/360. Valve recognise this but they can't be bothered to learn. Still though, I wouldn't buy a Valve game for a console. L4D looks bad enough on an awesome PC (nowhere near as good looking as CS:S), I nearly had a shit when I saw the 360 version.

  • Darren #50 3 years ago

    Interesting article as always, Richard Leadbetter, even if I'm tending to buy most multiformat games for the PC these days rather the consoles but nevertheless I still find them fascinating reads for all the technical info. I've noticed that you're still getting your refresh rates confused with framerates though. ;)

    The "30FPS refresh rate" comment in the Wolverine article should read "30FPS framerate". Refresh rate in hertz (Hz) refers to how many times per second a monitor or TV screen updates, the framerate is how many frames per second a graphics card can output. They are not the same thing. You can play a 30 FPS (framerate) game on a 60 Hz (refresh rate) monitor for example.

    It's just a minor thing but it's one I felt needed pointing out because your articles are otherwise informative and accurate. Keep it up!

  • Garulon #51 3 years ago

    "It all comes down to ability and willingness to learn (I'm looking at Valve) when PS3 developing"

    Work more hours!

  • Darren #52 3 years ago

    @chessboxer - I think Left 4 Dead looks great on my PC considering it's using the dated Source engine but the Xbox 360 version does look a bit shoddy I'll give you that. Mind you the Half-Life 2 ports did too. Some AA won't go amiss, Valve!!!

  • peteb #53 3 years ago

    I have to say that i havent seen any tearing at all in the 360 version and im about halfway through. I'm playing it at 1080p through hdmi. So either there is no tearing, or its so slight I haven't noticed it at all. Good either way.

  • stepneg #54 3 years ago

    "But PS3 has finally shown that its just superior graphically to xbox but its alot harder and more expensive to show it. Even the most hardcore 360 fan knows that 360 games are not or never will be as good looking as Killzone, Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, GT5 and God of War3"

    I love it, even after another ass pounding for the PS3 there are still people who will try and put a positive spin on it, just accept it that Sony are third place and the industry is better for it. I have a PS3 BTW and if it wasn't for Blu Ray I would sell it, most disappointing console I have bought since the Lynx.

  • Calgon #55 3 years ago

    Garulon +1 well put, been thinking the same thing myself they cant afford too many Killzones thats for sure.(not to mention they probably dont have the time for that many)

    I dont know if its been mentioned yet but we have another example that shows PS3 fanboys are desperate to claim theres a PS3 game that 360 cant do(never with any technical explanations because there isnt any) ie some sort of "proof" that PS3 is more powerfull and all the years of butthurt because of the 360 were worth it.

    Assassin's Creed - PS3 fanboys said it was exclusive because 360 couldn't do it, this was their proof PS3 was more powerfull... untill it turned out clearly better on the 360. The animation in this game alone is one of the best examples of this generation for raising the bar... more so than Uncharted that some PS3 fanboys try and claim.

    Codemasters racing engine built using Sony's Phyre engine that was much hyped to show PS3's strengths... even with PS3 as the lead platform, 360 gained the advantage.

    Ghostbusters - Non tech minded Exec said it was exclusive because it couldn't be done on 360, PS3 fanboys said it was their proof PS3 is more powerfull again... untill it turned out clearly better on the 360(interestingly enough some other comparisons on other sites seemed to have noticed differences omitted here in the effects department).

    Here's some funny quotes which are sure to pour a bit of much needed cold water on the PS3/CELL power hype:

    Justvideogames:
    PlayStation 3 as the lead console. Brendon Goss, Executive Producer at Terminal Reality (Ghostbusters developers), claimed they had built an engine, the Infernal Engine, which was designed to make the most the PS3s processing power.
    ....
    the Xbox 360 version seems to wipe the floor with the PS3.

    IGN:
    The PS3 features an eight-minute, 4 GB install that apparently doesn't do much seeing as how it takes both games about 30 seconds to load after a death or load a mission from the main screen. Although the PS3 has exclusive videos about refurbishing Ecto-1 and the Blu-ray trailer, the graphics seem to be a touch dumbed down on Sony's system. When you proton stream burns a wall on the 360, there's a black gouge in the wall that features smoldering embers and bits of fire. On the PS3, you get the fire and black gouge, but the little embers embedded in the cut don't make it. Similarly, when you attack Stay Puft on Microsoft's console, you're making dramatic changes to his puffy exterior. On the PS3, these changes aren't as severe -- it's almost like a bruise rather than a fiery cut.

    MGS4??? Technically it wont be MGS4 and they probably wont release the 360 version in a better state than the PS3 one for fear of being linched by a mob of teary eyed PS3 fanboys.

    I simply dont know how anyone can still be beleiving the PS3 hype based off the 1st party software... which is almost impossible to compare the consoles with more often than not. Not to mention MS simply havent focused nearly as much on 1st party and there are about 3 engines built for 360 that are still around that didnt have nearly as much time put into them(Fable2, Forza3 and Banjo).

  • Dave52 #56 3 years ago

    @Calgon,

    But the fact remains, good developers (1st or 3rd party) produce excellent games on the PS3. I suspect COD MW2 will be awesome on the PS3 and the XBox. Which prooves that multi-platform games can be done well. If Ghostbusters looks shit on the PS3 (and that does appear to be the case), it's down to the developers, not the platform.

    Infamous looks sweet and plays brilliantly. Drake2 will as well. So it can be done. I don't think the "PS3 beats Xbox" conversation is relevant. They both have great games that look and play great.

  • Feanor #57 3 years ago

    Infamous looks pretty rough a lot of the time.

  • Calgon #58 3 years ago

    Dave52 but you see Im only saying there isn't and wont be a game that 360(since the 360 is every bit as capable as PS3 is where it matters) wouldn't beable to match like has been claimed and disproved in the examples I gave.

    The funny thing is though for the PS3 fanboys when the results are bad it's down to the developers being poor(which sometimes is unfair to assume)not the hardware, when the results are good it's because "the hardware is the best" rather than down to the hard work(sweating bullets) of a team of talented devs who've spent more time than they usually do on an engine/game. So rather than concluding they'd probably work the same wonders if not better on the 360 with those budgets and that amount of time they fail to see it. Fanboyism is the only reason for it, that or the need to beleive they have the most powerfull console because that was the main reason they justified the extra cost compared to it's rival.
    Edited by 2 at 18/06/09 @ 17:30

  • Syrette #59 3 years ago

    You need to get out more, Calgon.

  • SlackMaster #60 3 years ago

    I have both a PS3 and a 360 but to be honest I'd always buy multiplatform games on the 360. They are usually the better conversions plus you get achievements.

    My PS3 will just be for the exclusives like Infamous, Little Big Planet and Metal Gear.

  • SlackMaster #61 3 years ago

    Apart from the differences in disc storage size I've not seen anything that technically couldn't be done on just as well on the 360 or visa versa. When watching E3 I couldn't help but cringe when any of the big 3 use terms like only possible on our console. I know they want to sell their consoles but this generation their is on clear winner in the technical department, between the 360 and PS3, when it comes to games.

  • Goodfella #62 3 years ago

    I don't know which is worse, these comparisons or the 360 fanboys who just love to ramble on and on about how PS3 fanboys are in denial.

  • #63 3 years ago

    Calgon as much as I do enjoy your technical posts please leave the Ps3 fanboy crap out. Your posts completely reek of the same attitude you despise and bleat on about.

    Come on, your much more intelligent than your portraying im sure.

    My only contribution to this thread is; if Eurogamer so so interested in microscopically comparing techical achievements between platforms, how about they start comparing like for like exclusives? Say Killzone2 with what ever 360 FPS exclusive shooter. GT5 Vs Forza. Uncharted vs ....

    I think this might be much more interesting. There doesnt have to be any fanboy baiting crap, just discussion of the techical merits of both platforms on exclusives.

  • SAH1977 #64 3 years ago

    Personally the only comparison I'm interested in is GT5 vs Forza 3, yet this is a comparison we won't see in this particular incarnation of face-off.

  • Calgon #65 3 years ago

    DaemonB because there its impossible to do "like for like" between exclusives you dummy.

    Multi-platform IS the closest it gets to benchmarks between them.

    To compare completely different games by different developers with different budgets and time constraints?... bit pointless isn't it? That to me looks like you just want some sort of victory for the PS3 no matter how shallow and meaningless, surely you're smarter than you are portraying there? ;)

  • makeamazing #66 3 years ago

    Codemasters racing engine built using Sony's Phyre engine that was much hyped to show PS3's strengths... even with PS3 as the lead platform, 360 gained the advantage.

    @calgon...Didnt they use their own inhouse engine EGO?

    Ghostbusters does look alot better (sharper) than the PS3 version from the comparison no doubt... but from what ive seen on my Hidef TV so far, if you hadnt see the comparison then you wouldnt know the difference. In other words, from what Ive seen, if i hadnt seen the comparison I wouldnt be complaining about the Ps3 version.. But it does seem that Terminal Reality tried to do too much it seems.
    Edited by 2 at 18/06/09 @ 18:05

  • Ryze #67 3 years ago

    @ Garulon
    He has several names:

    Apologie
    Banfoi
    blig_merk
    Rash'
    Les

    ...
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 18:05

  • Calgon #68 3 years ago

    makeamazing their engine whatever they named it was based on Phyre.

  • #69 3 years ago

    I fail to see why the likes of Gt5 and Forza3 couldn't be technically compared. It doesnt have to be a " whos going to win" article you know. Both games for example are the premier racers on both consoles, so why not?



  • Ryze #70 3 years ago

    @J1GSAW

    The only problem is that those games spend most of their time NOT BEING IN PLAYABLE, BUYABLE EXISTENCE!

  • man.the.king #71 3 years ago

    Taking into context the superlative efforts put forward by other developers like Media Molecule, Kojima/Konami, Guerilla, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Criterion, etc, it seems like that this poor technical PS3 example of a game reflects more on Terminal Reality's abilities and the combined talent (or rather, lack of it) of their team rather than the PS3 hardware.

    While it is true that developing for the PS3 may be more complicated, the developer should not fall back on the excuse of pointing to the PS3 hardware. Why not just admit that they did not have the manpower/resources/talent for a technically adequate performance?

    I feel that the Lens of Truth people may have got it right: if they indeed led on the PS3, then the porting team actually managed to do something that the development team was unable to do i.e. add textures and resolution. Or else the management at TR was lied to when they were told that the development effort was being led on the PS3.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 20:28

  • Dave52 #72 3 years ago

    Hey Farti - I'm gonna mark my calendar - today we agree with each other ;)

  • spongebob #73 3 years ago

    Why there is no DS vs PSP face-off?

  • TRUTH #74 3 years ago

    Killzone 2 is not better then anything esp compared to the textures, effects and what's happening on-screen to game like GoW 2, even COD 4 l(360) looks as good if not better and more open then KZ 2. Where exactly does KZ surpass anything - it's extremely liner, all characters are re-spawned out of site (there's no more then 10 onscreen at max). Ai are usually set to pre-set moves (play the game & you'll see that they actually follow routes rather then freely moving around areas as in Halo), best graphics are just set-pieces that happen when your character reaches a certain point on the level, even then it's not real-time as you can't do anything except watch not take part. For a PS3 game this might be a good game, but, fact is it's just a plain liner fps. If this was on PC/360 it would be considered fairly average game. And to think KZ took almost 4yrs for this - it's not that great!

    Uncharted - again where exactly does this surpass any games in graphics - Assassins Creed looks a whole lot better (though the game is repetitive!); with a lot larger plus more detailed environments then Uncharted...also has better animation /textures. Of course it also looked better and ran smoother on the 360 at a full 720p, unlike PS3's version!... Assassins Creed 2 + Just Cause 2 already look beyond any of these games from what I've seen - and I'm sure they will run better on the 360.

    Virtua Fighter 5, Assassins Creed just 2 games that Sony boasted that the 360 can't do or cope with as they were PS3 exclusives at first- yet the games played, looked, and had more features on the XB360 when they arrived.
    Edited by 2 at 18/06/09 @ 21:22

  • Goodfella #75 3 years ago

    You still can't spell linear I see.

  • Dizzy #76 3 years ago

    "Haven't some devs have said that they find it easier to code for the PS3 than the 360? "

    Errrr... no... none.

  • TheJuriel #77 3 years ago

    Yeah, I haven't heard any dev ever say PS3 was easy to code for.

  • chris_ace #78 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:55:13 13-12-2011

  • Goodfella #79 3 years ago

    @donnie080208

    I got a PS3 purely for the exclusives bar Resi 5 (as I have a 360) and the ones I have and want far out weigh the 360 exclusives I have/want.

    Each to their own, etc.

  • TRUTH #80 3 years ago

    LOL at PS3 - almost 4ys on and still falling behind!!

  • SAH1977 #81 3 years ago

    GT5 vs Forza 3 is the ultimate face off as they are both potraying essentially the same content. PD and Turn 10 push the hardware to the limit, backed with as many resource as Sony and Microsoft respectively can throw at them, the results speak for themselves and demonstrate the power of each console.

    Multi-platform titles tell us more about the quality of the development team and multi-platform capability of a game engine.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 22:49

  • BBIAJ #82 3 years ago

    No mention of the way FUEL on the PStriple pauses every single time you collect any pick-up, be it fuel barrels, liveries, vista points, maverick vehicles, and doppler trucks, as seen in the Gametrailers review.

    Also, I haven't seen a single bit of tearing in the 360 version of the game, most impressive!

    On another note, I'm pretty sure that an ex-Bungie dev has already said that KillZone 2 is perfectly doable on the 360.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/09 @ 22:59

  • lockload #83 3 years ago

    It plainly obvious that developers arnt oputting effort in ps3 version when the return on that investment us much lower than the 360 version makes business sense

  • BillyBrush #84 3 years ago

    KZ2 looks nice to me....but anyway, i personally don't beleive a PS FPS game is ever going to control as well as a 360 one as the pad with the sticks close together and same height....for these games, is inferior...i know a fair few people with both consoles, and i expect they will all go for MW2 on 360 because of the pad let alone anything else. this is one area that sony seem to have innovated begrudgingly and they've ended up with an improved ps2 pad, whereas MS went with a huge ass controller xbox 1, had to improve it with the controller-s and improved again with the new one.

    I realise this is nothing to do with multiplat games tech...but it's key to which console you buy which type of games for.

  • drumbaby #85 3 years ago

    "I'm pretty sure that an ex-Bungie dev has already said that KillZone 2 is perfectly doable on the 360. "

    Which is why something of its graphical standard has perfectly not been done yet, with a year + headstart on the 360's tech'.

  • Machetazo #86 3 years ago

    Welcome to the list, Terminal Reality.
    Makers of Bloodrayne, and Blair Witch, now releasing such a crapload of excuses for Ghostbusters looking so bad on PS3, that never had a hope in washing. But, then, I motion my thumb a few places further down from the adventures of the bladed blood-letter on their company software release list, and I see "Roadkill", and it's no longer a surprise

    Good article, though. Saved me supporting such a mess, (and its creator's methodology). Happily, there are plenty of other, more deserving games to investigate. :)

  • BBIAJ #87 3 years ago

    @ drumbaby:

    I/he said doable, not done already...

  • BBIAJ #88 3 years ago

    I guess you need to re-read the Ghostbusters head-to-head then, it looks like a PStwo game for crying out loud!

  • Yaz #89 3 years ago

    drumbaby wrote "Which is why something of its graphical standard has perfectly not been done yet, with a year + headstart on the 360's tech'."

    Hmmm, perhaps you can list the fps games on the 360 which were 4 years in development and with the budget of Killzone 2.

    Yes KZ2 is a great achievement on the PS3 (technically), but let's not ignore the fact that the time and resources ploughed into the game is responsible for much of that achievement.

    Anyway, another face-off and yet again it's the same pattern as seen from the very first face-offs here years ago. However, Ghostbusters deserves all the criticism it gets, since the devs had a lot to say about PS3 developement (which Sony fanboys pounced upon), and yet their game adds to the growing list of inferior PS3 versions of games.

    Wasn't this the same dev who claimed Ghostbusters could have twice as much going on if it was a PS3 exclusive (using a simplistic but false arguement)? This led to reports that the 360 was holding the game back, for example;

    [link url=http://xbox.joystiq.com/2008/04 /30/ghostbusters-dev-360-holding-back-ps3-version/
    ]http://xb ox.joystiq.com/2008/04/30/ghost...[/link]

    Fanboys pounced upon these reports, but now it's clear that the 360 didn't hold the game back at all, since it's the PS3 which is struggling (and failing) to keep up with the 360 version. If the claims were true that the 360 was holding the PS3 back, then at worse, the PS3 version should have been superior! Hopefully that's a lesson learned for those who like to take the comments of devs literally and without question (whenever it suits them that is).
    Edited by 2 at 19/06/09 @ 07:59

  • des #90 3 years ago

    lol at crybabies...
    Blame Sony for crappy outdated gpu,mess of a cpu and overblown OS...



    Ghostbusters is a good game,probably the best movie based game,must play for ghostbusters fans regardless of platform.

  • Garulon #91 3 years ago

    "GT5 vs Forza 3 is the ultimate face off as they are both potraying essentially the same content. PD and Turn 10 push the hardware to the limit, backed with as many resource as Sony and Microsoft respectively can throw at them, the results speak for themselves and demonstrate the power of each console"

    Actually yeah, both manufacturers have pimped these as amazing-looking games, they're both 720p 60FPS racers, I'd really like to see a comparision face-off with these guys when they're released. Not just for fanboi bait (though they're doubtless be loads, GT is pretty much sacrosanct amongst the PS3 fanbois) but I'd love to see the various different approaches and techniques used by these games.

  • man.the.king #92 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    "Yes KZ2 is a great achievement on the PS3 (technically), but let's not ignore the fact that the time and resources ploughed into the game is responsible for much of that achievement."

    Here you go again (just like on QJ) negating everything to do with the PS3, no matter how negligibly small or fantastically great it may be.

    Regardless of time and efforts, from what I've seen and played (speaking as a multi-console owner), I've yet to see a 360 game cross the graphical achievements of KZ2, LBP, Uncharted, MGS4. So fine, KZ2 took a while, so why doesn't a MS first-party studio do the same? You can bang on all you want about the development time and act the 360 evangelist until you are sated, but I'll believe you when I see a 360 game excel graphically over the best the PS3 has to offer. You seem to imply that compared to PS3 games, 360 games are done on the cheap. Frankly, I don't think that is the case.

    I wasn't surprised to see you ignore (or at the very least, cut them slack) the real culprits in the Ghostbusters debacle - the team at Terminal Reality - and instead take this opportunity to take another jab at the PS3 and PS3 fanboys.

    Easy target, right? Especially on EG.
    Edited by 2 at 19/06/09 @ 09:50

  • Rodchenko #93 3 years ago

    Hmmm, perhaps you can list the fps games on the 360 which were 4 years in development and with the budget of Killzone 2.

    Nice trick of you to limit the potential answers to FPS games, so that nobody shall mention Alan Wake. Besides, games based on Halo 3 tech have been in development for more than 4 years now (and Bungie probably had/has a budget GG can only dream of). Given what they showed at E3, it didn't evolve much in the visual department, though.

    But I never understood that silly argument in the first place: "Your game might look better, but mine was developed in half the time, that's why I win".

  • muscleblade #94 3 years ago

    Killzone 2 would probably look better on a 360. The same goes for Uncharted. Gears 2s graphics looks more advanced to me than the graphics in KZ2 tbh. The game itself is a lot better too.

  • muscleblade #95 3 years ago

    The 360 version of Assassins Creed looks better than Uncharted imo. The PS3 version doesnt.

  • TH1882FC #96 3 years ago

    "Killzone 2 would probably look better on a 360. The same goes for Uncharted. "

    Haha, priceless. What a complete idiot you are muscleblade.

  • VandelayIndustries #97 3 years ago

    @Yaz, farticus & a handful of others,

    This whole "Well Guerrilla Games had four years" argument is a bit misleading, if you look at something like Gears of War 2, it's based on tech that's been developed and iterated for games for over ten years now.

    Yes Killzone 2 took a while to be made but do you really think the follow up will take that long? I don't.

    Take Uncharted for example, I don't know how long the first one took to make but the second one will be on the shelves within two years of the first one's release.

    Also, it appears that the hardware of either console has little do with the shocking display in these face offs. Take a gander at this Digital Foundry interview with Criterion....

    Part one
    Part two

    It seems these face offs tell more about the skill and attitude of the developers than the hardware it self. Just look at the work of Criterion, IW, Black Rock Studios, a bunch of EA Sports studios and now Grin.
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 11:59

  • Dizzy #98 3 years ago

    "It seems these face offs tell more about the skill and attitude of the developers than the hardware it self. Just look at the work of Criterion, IW, Black Rock Studios, a bunch of EA Sports studios and now Grin. "

    Keep on telling that to yourself.

    Me, personally, I prefer to develop my games on a easy to use platform. It gives me more time to do more interesting stuff than write assembler to get the most out of a supposedly awesome machine.

  • muscleblade #99 3 years ago

    @TH1882FC

    Your the idiot.

    Look at my cooments in the Ghosbusters review where i stated the 360 version looks "considerably" better.
    I was flamed for that comment. looks like i was right once again. Dude i have played through KZ2. Have you played through Gears 2? No? I rest my case.

  • Xerx3s #100 3 years ago

    "I'm not so sure. If you look at the results from certain developers, the PS3 has been amazing. I guess it's a more difficult beast to develop on, and the Ghostbusters people have made an arse of it."

    This much is true. However, there is no doubt in my mind that if ms would allow their powerhouse IP's to have a 5 year+ development cycle, they would get equal or better results. This is something people often forget. They i.e. compare games and then forget that one game hasn't even had half the dev time of the other.

    You can make every game on every system look like the best game ever, it just depends on the development time.

  • Xerx3s #101 3 years ago

    "GT5 vs Forza 3 is the ultimate face off as they are both potraying essentially the same content. PD and Turn 10 push the hardware to the limit, backed with as many resource as Sony and Microsoft respectively can throw at them, the results speak for themselves and demonstrate the power of each console.

    Multi-platform titles tell us more about the quality of the development team and multi-platform capability of a game engine."

    Again, development time. T10 has pumped out 3 HQ games in the time that PD takes to make one game. There is just no way that you can say that one machine is better than another simply because a handful of developers get unlimited time to make a game.

  • TH1882FC #102 3 years ago

    Xerx3s - However, there is no doubt in my mind that if ms would allow their powerhouse IP's to have a 5 year+ development cycle, they would get equal or better results.

    Wasnt Alan Wake announced at the same E3 conference where Guerilla announced Killzone.............

  • Yaz #103 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    "Here you go again (just like on QJ) negating everything to do with the PS3, no matter how negligibly small or fantastically great it may be."

    QJ? I haven't been there for ages. Thanks for the reminder :)

    Now back to this topic. I think my comment can only be seen as "negating everything to do with the PS3", by those who are overly sensitive about the PS3 (for numerous reasons I can think of), and therefore they seem to view anything which doesn't shower the PS3 with love as an attack. *rolleyes*

    So I stand by my comment about KZ2, it doesn't negate the game in any way or the acheivements of the devs, it simply puts the game into context.

    "I've yet to see a 360 game cross the graphical achievements of KZ2, LBP, Uncharted, MGS4."

    And I have no doubt that if those same devs were working exclusively on the 360 with similar time and budgets, they would achieve equally great results on that console too. You see, unlike some gamers, I like to focus most of my praise upon the talents and achievements of the devs, rather than on the hardware. Besides, I think the Gears of War series more than holds it's own, despite running on a multi-format game engine.

    "So fine, KZ2 took a while, so why doesn't a MS first-party studio do the same?"

    Perhaps because, for numerous reasons, Sony has attracted some of the best development teams in the industry, where some of them (like Naughty Dog and Konami) go all out to push the hardware further than anyone else. Can you name a 360 exclusive dev with a record of doing the same on Microsoft consoles? Because I can't.

    "You can bang on all you want about the development time and act the 360 evangelist until you are sated"

    360 evangelist? Careful, you're beginning to sound like a PS3 evangelist.

    "I wasn't surprised to see you ignore (or at the very least, cut them slack) the real culprits in the Ghostbusters debacle - the team at Terminal Reality - and instead take this opportunity to take another jab at the PS3 and PS3 fanboys."

    That was NOT a jab at the PS3, I was only targetting PS3 fanboys (hey, but if the cap fits ;)). I make no apologies for attacking fanboys of any consoles. Still, given that you even accuse Eurogamer of being biased towards the 360 (for simply telling the truth in the face-offs), then your post here was to be expected.
    Edited by 2 at 19/06/09 @ 14:03

  • Xerx3s #104 3 years ago

    "Wasnt Alan Wake announced at the same E3 conference where Guerilla announced Killzone............. "

    A) And it looks very good.
    B) It's not a powerhouse IP in the sense of graphics like KZ (it focusses on other things than graphics)
    C) If you have followed the development you would know that they did a SC5 halfway through.

    Apples and oranges really. I reckon that it will be better to compare Killzone 3 with Halo Reach as HR has probably been in development since Halo 3 (so that will roughly be the same dev time as KZ3). All I'm saying is: You can't just compare games and systems and say: this one is better than this one. There are just too many variables in effect.

  • TH1882FC #105 3 years ago

    Yaz - Sony has attracted some of the best development teams in the industry, where some of them (like Naughty Dog and Konami) go all out to push the hardware further than anyone else. Can you name a 360 exclusive dev with a record of doing the same on Microsoft consoles? Because I can't.


    And why is that? They are hardly strapped for cash are they.

  • Entity #106 3 years ago

    "LOL at PS3 - almost 4ys on and still falling behind!! "

    LOL at your face- almost 4yrs on and still bloody ugly!!

  • Yaz #107 3 years ago

    @Rodchenko who wrote "Nice trick of you to limit the potential answers to FPS games, so that nobody shall mention Alan Wake."

    KZ2 is a fps, so it makes sense to compare it with other FPS games, i.e. to compare like [genres] with like. I fail to see the logic, for example, in comparing a game like GT5 to Oblivion, or Gears of War 2 to LBP.

    "Besides, games based on Halo 3 tech have been in development for more than 4 years now (and Bungie probably had/has a budget GG can only dream of)."

    Firstly, Bungie produce very good graphics for their Halo games, but their main focus is on the gameplay, with graphics only as good as the gameplay would allow (many devs aim for the reverse). Secondly, by the nature of the graphical style, Halo has a brighter more colourful look to it, unlike the more gritty and hence more realistic style of KZ or COD.

    As for the budget, I seriously doubt Halo 3, which was done in half the time of KZ2, was done with a budget that "GG can only dream of".

  • Yaz #108 3 years ago

    TH1882FC wrote "And why is that? They are hardly strapped for cash are they."

    That's a very good point, but you see, it's not about cash, it's about talent! Such talented devs are not "ten a penny". Developers with that level of talent are rare, and therefore companies have to either be fortunate/active enough to go out and find it, or if they're lucky, the devs will find them.

    Sony were by far the market leaders for two generations running (Playstation and PS2), that's 10 years, and hence during that time, many new devs wanting to make a name for themselves approached the market leader, i.e. Sony. Nintendo and then Microsoft were out of the picture in this respect, with comparitively low console sales.

    Sony also have a culture which is very welcoming and supportive of developers, something which is true for Microsoft, but whilst they were late, Sony still began this gen with the momentum left over from the previous gen, and hence could still attract great devs, especially with the promise of what the PS3 could offer them.
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 13:41

  • funkateer #109 3 years ago

    "It's an evolved multiformat engine so bears very little comparison to a bespoked, from-scratch engine. Sure, it will have parts of it optimised for the 360 but only parts of it. It would never be anywhere near as efficient as a ground-up engine. "

    No, I think that's not really true. The Unreal engine has always been primarily developed on PC architecture, and the XBox' architecture is quite similar to that.
    Your argument might even hold more true on the PS3 platform as that is quite different from a PC.

  • Yaz #110 3 years ago

    Ok, with my mouth still full of food, that's all I could manage during my lunch break.... back to work now. :)

  • muscleblade #111 3 years ago

    @Entity

    LOL at your bitterness.

  • VandelayIndustries #112 3 years ago

    @farticus "It's an evolved multiformat engine so bears very little comparison to a bespoked, from-scratch engine. Sure, it will have parts of it optimised for the 360 but only parts of it. It would never be anywhere near as efficient as a ground-up engine."

    Indeed. I figured I could use it as an example because as it was tinkered with for that game, which is exclusive.

    Nonetheless, I think there are enough good examples of multi-platform development now, that the likes of Terminal Reality should really be utterly ashamed of their own sloppy workmanship.


    @Dizzy "Me, personally, I prefer to develop my games on a easy to use platform. It gives me more time to do more interesting stuff than write assembler to get the most out of a supposedly awesome machine."

    Well that is your prerogative, I just feel that if a publisher/developer wishes to make a multi-platform game (and thus make more money) then they should do the job properly. Which is why I named those studios above as they seem to be able to do this.




  • muscleblade #113 3 years ago

    "Basically they dedicated the bulk of their dev time to gameplay rather than graphics, and it was absolutely the right move, as their fans and also their accountant will inform you. ;) "

    Hard to argue with that. Wonder how many fans KZ2 has compared to Halo 3.
    Perhaps 10%? Maybe20% . Wake up people!
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 14:35

  • muscleblade #114 3 years ago

    "As for Gears 2 vs killzone 2, i've completed both and gears 2 is the better game, no doubt about it. "

    All the people i know that have actually played both say the same thing. They think Gears 2 looks better. The PS3 fanboys that brag about how good KZ2 and Uncharted looks compare them to the ugly looking multiplaform ports on the same sytem. You know - games like Ghostbusters. You dont know how good it looks unless you compare it with the best looking 360 games.

    The scene hammerhead is talking about beats everything ive seen on the PS3.
    Note: The best game this summer is probably Infamous because Prototype didnt turn out to be as good imo so its not all bad to be a PS3 owner.

  • Bloodhunter #115 3 years ago

    PC needs to be added in, because it would win hands down.

  • funkateer #116 3 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    "Unfortunately it is true. The 360 architecture bears as much resemblance to a PC as the PS3 does. The CPU is not the single defining attribute of a computer. For example, the segregated PS3 memory architecture is PC-like whereas the 360 unified memory + eDram is not."

    I don't agree.
    'unified memory' or embedded DRAM doesn't really differentiate the XBOX's architecture much from a PC's from a programming p.o.v.
    It just means that there is just one big pool of RAM which can also be allocated as VRAM, so that RAM/VRAM sizes are not as rigid as when they are separate like for example in PS3 (and that is quite useful if you have 'only' 512MB to spend), and the eDRAM means that the frame buffer is very fast (which is simply a performance benefit, which doesn't really have much code implications).
    And there are also PC's with RAM shared with the GPU (although they are usually crappy ones).

    Of course the CPU is not the defining attribute of the computer, but in this case it's the most important difference between a PC and the console from a hw perspective:
    Symmetrical multicore (PC, X360) vs. asymmetrical (PS3).
    This really can have some serious coding implications.

    And then there's the software side. The XBOX being a MS product, it uses API's similar to the PC's such as DirectX. Unreal technology being primarily developed on PC, for example the DX code was already there where I suppose the PS3's libgcm code path had to be developed from scratch.

    So really I'm still not convinced that designing a game engine specifically for XBOX would have that much benefit over for example an Unreal engine tweaked for X360.

    :-)
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 15:51

  • Garulon #117 3 years ago

    "Symmetrical multicore (PC, X360) vs. asymmetrical (PS3).
    This really can have some serious coding implications."

    Not as much as both PS3 and 360 are PowerPC out of order processors with a totally different programmers model to the PC, and you're ignoring the VMX 128 in the 360, the unified shader GPU, the way eDRAM soaks up overdraw, the teslleation engine, the technique of locking down cachlines to squirt directly to the GPU - I'd say the PS3 arch is exactly a PC arch except with a Cell processor instead of an x86 one. The 360's arch is almost exactly the same as the PS2's ironically.

  • man.the.king #118 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    "...overly sensitive about the PS3...seem to view anything which doesn't shower the PS3 with love as an attack"

    Nice of you to avoid giving a direct response by instead implying that I'm a fanboy. Well, for what it's worth, I have NEVER seen you say anything nice about the PS3, on QJ or on here. Does that mean there is nothing to appreciate about the console or it's games? Even people like farty and others manage to say something positive about the console once in a while. I have yet to see you say anything which would imply you are even a little neutral.

    "360 evangelist? Careful, you're beginning to sound like a PS3 evangelist."

    All that reply of yours did was try to fling back my implication at myself without offering any proof. I challenge you to go through my posts here and on QJ to find out where I have been unreasonably critical about the 360 or it's games. Going through the post history is easy, especially here on EG. It's not too hard. All you have to do is look at topics that seem to relate to the 360.


    "And I have no doubt that if those same devs were working exclusively on the 360 with similar time and budgets, they would achieve equally great results on that console too."

    Maybe. I'm not contesting that. However, saying "could be" is a lame attempt to counter something that is already existing. That is like the SDF in 2006 pointing to future games (as in 2007/2008/2009) for present glory (or vindication, as the case may be).

    "Perhaps because, for numerous reasons, Sony has attracted some of the best development teams in the industry, where some of them (like Naughty Dog and Konami) go all out to push the hardware further than anyone else"

    That is such a lame attempt at reasoning. Are you saying that the teams at Epic, Rare, Bungie, Remedy, Lionhead, Bioware are any less talented or less dedicated than the developers working for the Sony stable?

    "Still, given that you even accuse Eurogamer of being biased towards the 360"

    Yes, I do think there is a lack of integrity on EG. However, that has nothing to do with a bias for the 360 or any particular love for Microsoft. The following is my opinion, and I may be wrong, but in my own limited view, the reasoning sounds logical: From what I hear, last-gen, EG was similarly fawning over PS2 and Sony, while this gen, it is MS and the 360. My inference from this, is that EG simply knows which side of their bread is buttered, i.e. they will pander to the Console and Company that has the largest currently existing install-base and/or fanbase. Now, going by strict mathematics, that would be Nintendo and the Wii. However, I assume EG is well aware that more than 60% ( a figure I pulled out of my arse, but I don't think it's too far off) of the Wii demographic is not likely to be frequenting this site. So the next-best option is the 360. My opinion is that, were the balance to shift any time in the future, EG's articles would reflect that in their spin and the slant of their articles (NOT referring to the face-offs here; I do not have Digital Foundry's advanced equipment, so there is no way for me to verify for myself other than my own eyes). Admittedly, their stance towards Sony and the PS3 does seem to have recently softened somewhat though.
    Edited by 1 at 19/06/09 @ 17:38

  • man.the.king #119 3 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    "From a technical perspective Gears 1 and 2 both match those games."

    That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, I have read articles here on EG where it appears that Richard Leadbetter, the author of these face-off articles, seems to support my opinion of KZ2 & Uncharted, among others, rather than yours. Not taking a jab at you or anything (especially as you seem to be particularly balanced in your posts today :) ), but I think it would be rather hypocritical to take RL at his word on the face-offs when it seems to favor 360 games, and ignore his opinion when it seems to favor PS3 games. Again, this is not specifically aimed at you or anything, just generally speaking.


    "Comparitively speaking they are. With the notable exception of Alan Wake there hasnt been a 360 game with anywhere near the dev time of KZ2. "

    As another poster here said "why is that; MS is not exactly strapped for cash, are they?". What you seem to be forgetting is that with most PS3 exclusives, the developers first time does seem to be rather spent on developing their own engine for the PS3. And what about Uncharted, LBP and MGS4? As far as I know, these didn't take as long as Guerilla. Myself, I think GG were pushed into making sure that the graphics were up to scratch because of the E3 2005 debacle though, and if not for that, they might have released the game earlier. Still, all in all, it is good, isn't it, especially as their next game should not take that long and still hopefully maintain this same level of technical performance.

    "That's not to say long dev times are always a bad thing, as long as there are frequent releases inbetween. "

    Agreed :)

  • Calgon #120 3 years ago

    Hang on one minute people are saying "MS lost another billion on the xbox brand... they is teh doomed, not making profit" the next they conveniently completely forget(when it suits them as always) they are there to make money and say "they arent strapped for cash... they can throw money and invest in 1st party games too just like Sony have".

    The truth is they haven't the games have been released much faster(3-4 MGS Racers before PS3s flagship racer GT5 even hits the market, I also bet a large chunk of Halo3's costs went on the huge marketing campaign alone).... I couldn't say why, alot of money has been spent this gen building relationships with 3rd parties(especially in Japan), advertising(360 in general) and the like too, I mean theres 3 devs that were working closely with Microsoft Game Studios for a while that have either gone solo(Bungie) or been bought by another publisher(Bizarre, Bioware).

    Alan Wake isn't even a console exclusive, its a shared exclusive with the PC and I doubt development is leading on 360(thats not usually the best way to go about it for obvious reasons) for that title.

    As someone else pointed out 360 has been getting the upperhand enough that maybe MS didnt think they needed to invest in a graphical showcase for the 360... Sony and its devs have been busting their asses to get some because they needed them badly(some of their tactics before they launched backfired and people rightly doubted some of the claims made by Sony).

    Im hoping MS have noticed the effort Sony have been putting in recently personally because with their push for the casual market theres a chance that they are spreading themselves to thinly.

    Ive said it before who is there left at MGS?

    Lionhead make nice looking games but they are hardly known for squeezing the most out of hardware, perhaps thats their PC heritage? Where they have the luxury of ever expanding specs to use.

    I expected more from Rares Engine personally too(now be fair it looks nice and solid and all but when Rare release a game it usually spends some time as the best looking game on the platform in one way or another and it fell short of that... theres 3rd party games that look to be doing more IMO) but perhaps they focused on the gameplay changes more than anything else in that title? They arent the fastest of devs either and to say Banjo was their first title that started purely on 360 after they'd released 2 games already on the platform... perhaps there's still time for them to show us they still have it? I hope so, I have a feeling this is were next the graphical showcase is most likely come from out of the 1st party lineup.

    Turn10 look to have put some effort in but we need to see more of it really, I have a feeling it could be a repeat of Forza vs GT4 though(maybe not though they are pretty experienced now). They dont seem to realise that "looking realistic" isn't always acheived by actually doing more onscreen, in Forza1 they did some great modelling in the evironments very minimal use of 2d sprites compared to its rivals and some good lighting and shadowing [for its time] yet GT4 in alot of ways got credit for "looking" more realistic.(which requires some talent in itself on the devs part, no doubt they know what they are doing) I suppose its good that both teams seem to have their own style, one looks to be sort of replicating CGI and the other to make it look realistic however possible.(clever use of colour palet, sprite placement ect not afraid to cut corners to get the end result when you are zooming by)

    Bungie? I dont really know if thats one of their strengths, they are talented but they have hardly ever seemed like graphics whores to me, I mean look at mastercheif for example hardly the prettiest character designs, it looks like they keep the graphics competent, solid and simple and then let the gameplay/art direction ect do the rest.

    I think its about time MS build their own team(or two or more wouldnt hurt) of dev wizzards to represent the platform, since they dont seem to have as many 1st party devs as Nintendo or Sony at the moment... am I missing any out? Apart from the ones that only do LIVE games obviously.
    Edited by 3 at 19/06/09 @ 19:12

  • man.the.king #121 3 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    "just because a game is exclusive doesnt automatically make it better than a multiplat."

    That's true, and I was not implying that was the case. Purely going by the fun factor, I would give more marks to COD4 than KZ2 and Oblivion for me is much better than Fable 2. However, going by realism (ignoring the sci-fi aspects here) and strategy, KZ2 wins hands-down, especially on Elite difficulty. For me, the last level on KZ2 on that difficulty was so ball-crushingly hard, it was just evil :) - I was thanking all manner of Gods when I got to the last fight with only Radec . While I appreciate your feelings about GeOW2, for me, I thought Uncharted and KZ2 did more technically, although, to be honest, Uncharted 1 did employ a tactic similar to GeOW2 for huge distances - it blurred (misted over) distant maps while focusing exceedingly on the near. Not technical language, I know, but it's the best I can do. But I have to say, I do enjoy Gears 1, Gears 2, Resistance 2, the Ratchet series, Uncharted & MGS4 more than some other multiplats. Actually, on the 360, I liked Kameo a lot as well, but that may be just me.

    "assuming GG decide to share it"

    I would rather Naughty Dog shared their know-how, as they seem to be able to make pretty good games with good technical performance, and that too without any HDD install! Add to that Insomniac's seeming ability to make huge, consistent, environments on the PS3 games, and maybe the result would be something wonderful. Well, one can hope, at any rate.
    Edited by 3 at 19/06/09 @ 19:05

  • muscleblade #122 3 years ago

    @Bloodhunter

    Not at all. PC version of Ghosbusters doesnt even have multiplayer. Read and learn.

  • Yaz #123 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    "Nice of you to avoid giving a direct response by instead implying that I'm a fanboy. Well, for what it's worth, I have NEVER seen you say anything nice about the PS3, on QJ or on here."

    Oh yes, I believe you are Thinker on QJ, aren't you. And "for what it's worth", I don't recall saying anything BAD against Sony or the PS3 either, neither here or on QJ (although no doubt, just saying it's has similar power to the 360 would be 'bad' to some). Yes I'm pro-MS, we've discussed that before, you are pro-Sony, but unlike you, I'm not anti-Sony in the way you are obviously anti-MS (whilst suggesting you're neutral when it suits you), as seen by your claims of MS bribing devs, that Eurogamer are against Sony etc;

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/art icles/gdc-sony-offers-devs-guaranteed-royalties/comments
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-so...[/link]

    To quote yourself "Er, no, the way I see it, they have just now decided to join the MS bandwagon of bribing developers for exclusivity, timed or otherwise. Now, if they can only adopt other practices like controlling game-website opinions and reviews like Microsoft has been doing all along in order to garner positive public opinion, everything would be peachy"

    [link url=http://www. eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-17-art icle/comments?comment_start=50
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-3...[/link]

    Quote: "With this much of 360 bias exhibited everywhere throughout the website, is it any wonder that the 360 appears to win every time, at least on this website? Hell, every single article will exhibit a Pro-360, anti-PS3 spin. This would be apparent ONLY if you read with an open mind, not tinged with green :)"

    Oh and remind me, wasn't that last comment from you in a face-off? You know, where you just said "NOT referring to the face-offs here; I do not have Digital Foundry's advanced equipment, so there is no way for me to verify for myself other than my own eyes". Hmmm.

    So enough of your comments such as "Yes, I do think there is a lack of integrity on EG. However, that has nothing to do with a bias for the 360 or any particular love for Microsoft" when that's EXACTLY what you've said numerous times here on Eurogamer and elsewhere! Seems you're the one lacking integrity.

    And you have a nerve to accuse me of a lame attempt at reasoning when you produced lame reasons to justifying your believe that Eurogamer are biased. You are typical of gamers on the internet who cry out "biased" whenever reports and/or reviews on a website don't go the way you would like. By claiming a website is biased, you automatically give yourself the reason to dismiss anything on that website which goes against your beliefs. Sad but true. I'm not saying bias doesn't exist, it always has and always will, and there are reviewers/reporters who at times express their bias even if they try not to, it's human nature, but it's something else to decide the WHOLE website is biased, or MUST be bribed/controlled by Microsoft, just because their opinions don't match your own.

    "Admittedly, their stance towards Sony and the PS3 does seem to have recently softened somewhat though."

    Except they haven't, it's just that with a much improved situation on the PS3 version of games in general, some great exclusive releases for the PS3 and generally good news regarding the PS3 in the market, Eurogamer's reports/articles now just so HAPPEN to coincide more with your own beliefs.

    Going back to the point about developers pushing the hardware. IF you bothered to think about what you'd read (or was your alias Thinker meant to be ironic on QJ?), you would know that I'm talking about the talent to PUSH the hardware, not their talents in general. The devs I listed place pushing the hardware much higher on their list of priorities compared to most other devs, and this is something which has been evident in some of their interviews over the years, where they boast about trying push the hardware further than others, and succeeding. These happen to be the same devs who also tend to be dismissive of other devs who say the hardware (PS2/PS3) is difficult to program, or that it's as difficult as other devs make out.

    Anyway, I've got friends over very soon, so that's all from me for tonight.
    Edited by 5 at 19/06/09 @ 19:58

  • byron_hinson #124 3 years ago

    Well after buying the game I can safely say that although it is a lot of fun - graphically it is certainly poor - its also VERY poorly upscaled which compared to other less than 720p titles was a bit of a surprise.

  • man.the.king #125 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    "I believe you are Thinker on QJ, aren't you"

    Yes, I believe I already told you this in an earlier post on an earlier article. Could be wrong, but I think I did say that somewhere on here.

    "...you are obviously anti-MS (whilst suggesting you're neutral when it suits you)...Seems you're the one lacking integrity"

    If you want to equate a change of perspective or change of opinion to a lack of integrity, go ahead, knock yourself out by congratulating yourself on "catching me out". If, however, you want to know the actual reason for a change of mind, here goes: in one of my debates with Calgon (leastways, I think it was Calgon), he mentioned EG seemed pro-PS2 in a similar fashion last gen, which made me think. Then, of course, there were Richard Leadbetter's articles where he seemed to opine that Uncharted and KZ2 were graphically advanced. That made me think that if they were indeed pro-360 everything, then they would never say that. Hence there had to be another reason for the apparent pro-MS spin in every article. Of course, honesty could be the reason for a pro-MS spin, but in an article exclusively related to the PS3? Which is why I came to the conclusion that their opinion was, in part, swayed by their primary audience, and not the reasons stated in earlier posts. That did not mean I was going to change my earlier posts just to stay consistent, though. If however, my changed opinion detracts from your feeling of vengeful vindication, by all means, accuse me of lying. But, changed reasons aside, I do think there is a lack of integrity which manifests in some articles here. So sue me for saying something which does not agree with your world-view. Tell me something, why did you NOT refer to more recent posts of mine, where I am anything but anti-MS? Did they not "fit" the profile of me that you had concocted in your mind?

    "but it's something else to decide the WHOLE website is biased, or MUST be bribed/controlled by Microsoft, just because their opinions don't match your own"

    That could be viewed from the opposite perspective as well, where you think the whole website is completely fair and impartial, especially if their opinions happen to match your own. While I agree that the possibility of a WHOLE website being bribed by MS is slim, the taste of bias was particularly strong in older articles. Or maybe they did that just to get more page hits by getting fanboys of every ilk riled up.

    "Eurogamer's reports/articles now just so HAPPEN to coincide more with your own beliefs. "

    Except that that's not what I'm referring to. If you bother to read EG's earlier articles carefully, there would always be a snide reference to Sony and/or PS3 perceived failings (especially included in an article relating to something positive about the PS3), or something like that.

    "or was your alias Thinker meant to be ironic on QJ?"

    Was that supposed to be clever? Were you going "Hmm, Thinker/man.the.king 's opinions do not coincide with mine, and he dares to openly disagree! So his handle on QJ must actually be referring to a handicap" ?

    "you would know that I'm talking about the talent to PUSH the hardware, not their talents in general"

    So why would such superlative teams such as Bungie, Epic, Valve, and especially Lionhead, NOT make the effort push the hardware on 360 just as hard? What incentive do they have not to? Especially Peter Molyneux's team? And Rare? And Valve? Aren't these particularly old hands with lots of experience under their belt? I'm not sure there is any difference between "talent" overall and "talent to push the hardware". If anything, "talent" would include "talent to push the hardware". Or are you splitting hairs just to try to appear as if you are making a relevant point?

    "Anyway, I've got friends over very soon, so that's all from me for tonight. "

    Fine, see you tomorrow on this thread. Have a nice evening.
    Edited by 5 at 19/06/09 @ 22:01

  • Loghorn #126 3 years ago

    Funny, this game was developed on the PS3 first, & yet, it still came out running & looking better on 360. Why am I not surprised?

    So much for the PS3 being mighty powerful, LOL. Seriously, multiplatform games on PS platforms are like the Sega Genesis of multiplats.
    Edited by 2 at 19/06/09 @ 21:57

  • XxTotalzxX #127 3 years ago

    When will a third party game come out looking better on PS3 than 360? I mean Sony has the first party titles looking by far and away superior to 360 ones, but when will third party developers finally push the PS3's power. With the original Xbox they tried really hard making the graphics stunning in comparison to the PS2 versions of games...Where's the love?

  • Calgon #128 3 years ago

    man.the.king: Sorry but this going around in circles the reasons have been given(be me, by yaz and many others... all stronger more logical reasons than you have for beleiving the PS3 exclusives are proof of PS3 being more powerfull... what will you do if and when there is a game that exceeds all of those games? Will you hold your hands up? We know you wont its just tedius and a waste of everybodies time) money being the prime one, second being there's only 3 360 engines around today the rest being multi platform(none of which have had more than 2 years spent on them... as far as I know for the PS3 ones its 3 years minimum on the engines alone)... its deliberate ignorrance on your part. Well here's the thing Uncharted2 and any other game you'd like to mention could be matched on 360 theres no reason to beleive otherwise, you havent given any reasons youve just said "this looks better and Ive not seen it on 360" thats pretty weak, not that you would admit when you do see it.(you will just move onto the "wait for this game to come out" tactic, its a never ending cycle)

    The 360 stands to benifit just as much as the PS3 with PC out of the picture(again the reasons have been given with no reply to them), there's 2 multiformat engines built to give PS3 the edge and in both cases 360 not only showed it could keep, up it exceeded the PS3, why do you think this is?(its so easy for you to blame the devs and very convenient ;)... ie we have the reverse of the arguement given time and time again in the face offs twice and still its not enough). The CPU's share more similarities than either of them do to the PC, In Order Of Execution being a major one, VMX128 and the SPUs have alot in common too(they have the same strengths, the code will be different but if anything more devs have optimised for the SPUs than VMX128 which they should be doing) and they will both work better with heavy parellelisation too... all of this is not the sort of thinking from PC devs, so please get it out of your head that 360 works best as a PC because thats total rubbish.

    Why bother asking questions that have been answered instead of tackling the answers? It just looks like you are dismissing them or pretending you didnt see them.

    Why not look at it all objectively and honestly tell us if you don't Sony's results are down to the fact they've strived for it where as MS have actually got fewer 1st and 2nd party teams than when they first started(ie they obviously havent been focussing as heavily on 1st party up untill now... it would only be a good thing if they did so now as a result of people claiming PS3 is more powerfull again). Circumstancial evidence is not in your favour, you just want to beleive PS3 is somehow more powerfull than the 360, when at this point in time there isn't a strong enough case to support that claim... it's even at best I'd say.

    Mentioning Valve shows how little thought you've put into it, try checking some of the latest comments from them and deduce why it makes no sence using them in your arguement. Epic are talented and Gears of War2 WOULD be one of PS3's best looking titles if was on that platform in that state, its still not a game built from the ground up for 360 though... are you telling us you beleive the results wouldnt be better if they did build a new engine based soley around the 360 and its strengths?

    Bungie has been covered before(theres 3rd party shooters such as COD4 that look better, since you are talking about pure image quality/graphical fidelity) so it's not worth going over again. There isn't a like for like comparison to be made between first party games yet(whats better comparing the same devs working on both platforms with the same amount of time, or completely different devs with completely different... well it's probably different in almost every area you'd like to mention more often than not), you know this yet you try and make out there is: "lets compare halo3 to killzone2 shall we" I mean come on who are you trying to fool?

    Right or wrong? To the PS3 fanboy, dev talent and everything else only matters when the PS3 looks bad?
    Edited by 3 at 20/06/09 @ 01:14

  • Calgon #129 3 years ago

    Err the same post is back before you commented on its deletion... yeah you look cool now. ;)

    I mean even commenting on it at all doesnt seem sad either or petty... nope. :/

  • Triggerhappytel #130 3 years ago

    Quite odd how the worst technical PS3 performer on this list is the one game Sony decided to get exclusive.

    Aside from that, business as usual, with the 360 winning, although not really enough for most people to be particularly worried.

  • Entity #131 3 years ago

    "@Entity

    LOL at your bitterness."

    LOL at your face!


    Send new material to: Couldntgiveashit @screwyou.com
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/09 @ 03:06

  • dcangel #132 3 years ago

    Wouldn't these articles make a lot more sense if in addition to a purely technical comparison, a more detailed analysis was undertaken of the functional differences between platforms? i.e. control responsiveness, suitability of each controller, online functionality, additional content availability, etcetera? I contend these can make a lot more difference than merely how sharp a game looks - and while some of these factors are subjective, at the end of the day the process of game reviewing is largely a subjective one, isn't it?

    Both consoles are excellent from a hardware POV (reliability not included, natch) and both can provide fantastic gaming experiences. Picking apart what in most cases are minor differences in resolution and filtering seems a little uncalled for.

    Oh, I own a 360. Just for the record. :D
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/09 @ 10:38

  • man.the.king #133 3 years ago

    @Calgon

    "what will you do if and when there is a game that exceeds all of those games? "

    I would accept it, of course. Please try and understand what I'm trying to say - I'm not saying 360 cannot match those graphics. All I'm saying is, till date I've not seen a game that does that. Why would I be against getting good graphics in a game? Especially for a console I own.

    "The 360 stands to benifit just as much as the PS3 with PC out of the picture"

    I'm not sure I agree with you there. I think the more competition there is, the better it will be for us all. Oh sure, we all might have to buy more hardware, but there is something to be said for diversity, after all.

    Right or wrong? To the PS3 fanboy, dev talent and everything else only matters when the PS3 looks bad?"

    If you feel that I'm a PS3 fanboy for disagreeing with your point of view, then so be it.

    As for an engine being built for 360 from the ground up, it could be - I'm not saying it's not possible. However, what I AM saying is that 360 has a stable of talented devs as well. It's not as if, as Yaz seems to imply, somehow Sony has snapped up all the talent, and I feel that the argument that the 360 stable does NOT have the talent to push the hardware is ridiculous.
    Edited by 3 at 20/06/09 @ 23:48

  • Yaz #134 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    Your claims in the past was that Microsoft were _directly_ behind the bias you believed to exist on websites like Eurogamer, going as far as to claiming MS were controlling their opinions and reviews, hence the bias. The fact that it took Calgon, or whoever it was, to finally knock some sense into your head on this issue is good to see, but it really shouldn't have taken that. Even IF Eurogamer were biased as you suggested, it still would have had nothing to do with Microsoft (or Sony in the past) pushing their buttons. Such claims, especially with no evidence to support it, are what I'd expect to read from fanboys, not those claiming to be mature gamers. Hence my problem with you. :-|

    Regarding your QJ alias, yes you'll find the post where you told me within the link I provided earlier. I use the same alias Yaz on numerous forums (unless already registered by someone else), and therefore whilst it was easy for you to remember me, it took some time before I equated man.the.king with Thinker.

    As for some people thinking a website is fair and impartial because their opinions match, yes I expect that happens a lot, however I've been here on Eurogamer much longer than QJ, and I've read what could be seen as pro-Sony articles many times here, and yet I have NEVER put this down to Eurogamer being bias towards Sony, I simply put it down to the reporter(s) being wrong on certain issues.

    A classic example of this are the reports from Rob and Tom on E3 2005 (and you can see my posts there too);

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/a_e32005nextgened itorialtom
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/a_e320...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/a_e32005nextgened itorialrob
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/a_e320...[/link]

    And for the backlash regarding Eurogamer being biased (yes, towards Sony);

    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/a_e32005reactionnotbi as
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/a_e320...[/link]

    In that last topic, notice how despite being in complete disagreement with Eurogamer over their interpretations of the PS3 and 360, myself (and some others) expressed only our disappointment with Eurogamer. Looking back now, it's surprising how right I/we were about the consoles and how wrong Eurogamer and others were over that issue (no really, have a look at the comments I made in that last link especially and see how accurate they were in comparison to the hype).

    At the time, just days after knowing the specs for both consoles, I was seen as negative towards the PS3 by people like yourself just for calling it as it is. But as you can see from my posts, I knew way back then that the GPUs were of similar power and that the 360's CPU has the edge for general processing power whilst Cell has the edge for arithmetic processing, giving the PS3 a slight edge overall. Because of this, I couldn't help but find myself arguing against the majority of Sony fans/fanboys, especially those who believed the KZ2 and Motorstorm videos were realtime. Back then, I even said said we'll see little if any difference in multi-format games and that gamers may have to make up reasons/excuses to try explain it (and so it came to pass... i.e. lazy devs, bad ports, difficult hardware, 360's 1 year head start, 360 holding back PS3, games downgraded to fit on DVD etc).

    Because of the hype, the majority of gamers (and reporters) were convinced that the PS3 was twice as powerful as the 360, they were convinced it blew the 360 away. Hence it was almost impossible for anyone like myself who had a more realistic point of view of both consoles to express it on forums without a tirade of insults and attacks, and not just from the fanboys. This made me more determined to correct those who made exaggerated claims about the PS3's abilities, and I have to confess, it's a habit which has stuck, hence I find myself attracted to articles and comments of this nature.

    You call it being negative, I call it telling the truth. Yes it shifts my position to being more pro-MS, but as I stated before, I'm not anti-Sony or anti-PS in any way, hence you will not find any posts from me making the kind of accusations about Sony as you have frequently done against Microsoft.

  • funkateer #135 3 years ago

    @farticusmaximus

    "You are entitled to your opinion no matter how very, very wrong it is."

    Saying someone is very, very wrong without arguments to back it up doesn't make you sound like you're very very right, farti ;-)
    So opinions aside, let me put down some straight facts for ya:

    1) I've probably made a multitude of money in game development more than you spent on gaming in your lifetime, so I think my opinions do have some ground. And I'm not even doing game development anymore because the pay kinda sucks compared to other software engineering areas.

    2) Usually, a relatively small percentage of development time is acually spent on performance critical rendering code, what everybody in here seems to focus on so much.

    3) In todays times of multicore processors, optimizing CPU performance means parallelisation. On X360 this is done in a well understood way since it's a traditional symmetric multiple core CPU like on PC, where on PS3 this is done quite radically differently.

    4) Everybody who knows what he's talking about knows that the X360 has a slight hardware edge over PS3 in areas that are important to gaming performance, especially in the GPU department. The PS3 has to make up for that by utilizing PS3' possible edge in CPU processing power('possible edge' because the Cell is not more powerful in every way), which is quite a specialized area. Without putting in that effort, PS3 multiplatform games suffer in comparison.
    Note that this is absolutely *not* the developer's fault.

    5) As I mentioned before, X360 largely uses the same gaming specific API's, which *is* a benefit for developers familiar with PC.

    Taken these points into consideration, it *is* highly unlikely that a specialized, from the ground up developed X360 only engine would benefit much over an existing engine with some key parts optimized for X360.
    On PS3, it makes a bit more sense.

    This is, btw, imho actually an advantage of the X360 over PS3.

  • Calgon #136 3 years ago

    Yaz thats quite funny in Tom's take we can see Mr Smelly aka "Im not against Xbox or MS honest I own one" defending Sony's integrity like crazy... bought it hook line and sinker by the looks of it and had the nerve to call people trying to tell him it was all smoke and mirrors fanboys to boot. Les can be found among them article comments too with his stuck up anti-ms sentiment.(another person who wont admit he has any bias)


  • Calgon #137 3 years ago


    funkateer

    In todays times of multicore processors, optimizing CPU performance means parallelisation. On X360 this is done in a well understood way since it's a traditional symmetric multiple core CPU like on PC, where on PS3 this is done quite radically differently.

    Again I will have to point out thats missleading...

    Cell and XCPU are In Order of Execution CPUs... a bit of IBMs VMX influence was put into the SPUs, IMBs new VMX128 they put into 360 is a gaming version of it(there wont be a version exactly like the 360s anywhere else).

    They both have atleast one Power PC core in them too, granted the architecture of the chip is different(indeed multi core - multi threaded chips can be found on the PC market) but 360s chip in no way should be refered to as a PC chip. It too will benifit from the same approach devs have been taking with CELL but nobody has felt the need to do it yet. Good performance isnt that hard to get out of it afterall, great performance though? Going to require similar thinking to PS3 development on the CPU side.

    In todays times of multicore processors, optimizing CPU performance means parallelisation. On X360 this is done in a well understood way since it's a traditional symmetric multiple core CPU like on PC, where on PS3 this is done quite radically differently.


    Actually this isn't accurate at all by my understanding and from comments from devs who have worked on 360, I think you'll find like I said above the approach would be similar to how the SPUs work to get the most out of the VMX on those 6 threads. I can link you to an XNA talk(from the gamefest ms event with audio and powerpoint presentation) on this very subject if you like which tells us how much room for improvement there is on the platform by "untapping the potential"(to take a Sony frais)devs either havent been using it or not getting the most out of it when they do.(its difficult in the same ways CELL is if not moreso according to some)

    Taken these points into consideration, it *is* highly unlikely that a specialized, from the ground up developed X360 only engine would benefit much over an existing engine with some key parts optimized for X360.
    On PS3, it makes a bit more sense.

    You'd be wrong there even if I didnt include all Ive wrote here on the CPU side and I could add more on the GPU side ect(all backed up sound reasoning and facts), just by looking at the history of video game engines we can say indeffinately your statement is a false one. Proprietary/specialised engines ARE the way to get the most out of a console.

  • Yaz #138 3 years ago

    @Calgon

    That's right, some of the usual suspects are there, making it quite amusing to read the comments from such individuals 4 years ago. :)

    Many of those opinions still exists today, hence my comments are seen as negative to gamers like man.the.king, who on QJ (as 'Thinker') would target my posts (as he's done here) especially when I state the 360 and PS3 have similar power, and yet he would ignore all posts from those claiming the PS3 was "way more powerful". Why? Because he too believes the PS3 is significantly more powerful than the 360, even dismissing the point of view of ALL devs who work with both consoles (despite obviously lacking the technical knowledge himself), and choosing instead to believe the PS3 is, to quote his words, "MUCH MORE POWERFUL" than the 360.

    Hence I see no reason to "cut them slack" or anyone else as man.the.king suggests, since he doesn't cut any slack to anyone who dares to suggest the PS3 is not as powerful as he and other gamers choose to believe.
    Edited by 1 at 21/06/09 @ 22:48

  • funkateer #139 3 years ago

    "Cell and XCPU are In Order of Execution CPUs... a bit of IBMs VMX influence was put into the SPUs, IMBs new VMX128 they put into 360 is a gaming version of it(there wont be a version exactly like the 360s anywhere else)."

    I know the Cell and Xenon are not x86 type processors like on PC, I know that they are in-order CPUs (as opposed to x86), and I'm not sure why you're dragging altivec into the discussion, but I think that's all quite besides the point I was making.

    That all doesn't change the fact making use of the 3 cores in Xenon is very different from making use of the SPU's in the Cell. Making use of the 3 symmetrical cores is (in broad terms) similar to making use of multi core x86 CPUs. The process of having the main core in the cell distribute work load across the SPU's is very different.

    Now I have to admit I never developed on Xenon (I did on other PPC though), so if I'm missing something I'm open to learning. But really, I don't know how order of execution or altivec/vmx changes the point I was trying to make.

    "just by looking at the history of video game engines we can say indeffinately your statement is a false one. Proprietary/specialised engines ARE the way to get the most out of a console."

    I never said that specialized engines would not be the way to squeeze the last drop out of a console.
    My point was that I think especially in the case of the X360, you should not expect too much as these type of consoles (X360 and PS3) have gone much closer to a PC than for example a N64 or Genesis ever were. My point was also that on PS3 it perhaps makes a bit more sense because of some hw peculiarties.

    IMHO Gears of War 2 is probably about as good as a game is going to look on X360. On the PS3 side, it's probably KZ2. As recent history goes, these are the best examples that back up my argument.

    To imply that a X360 only engine will make a world of difference is pure speculation on the same level as the usual 'teh awesome untapped potentialz of the PS3'.
    Edited by 1 at 22/06/09 @ 14:22

  • IronGiant #140 3 years ago

    Glad i grabbed the PS3 version of Bionic Commando :) Bargain from zavvi that was.

  • man.the.king #141 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    Sorry I wasn't able to reply to you sooner.

    "yet he would ignore all posts from those claiming the PS3 was "way more powerful"

    That's because I mostly ignore those articles of hyperbole. And probably because - if they were old - I was not into gaming at that time. I started console gaming with the 360, although I did have a PSP a year before that.

    "cut them slack"

    The only people to whom you seem to be cutting some slack is the developers (going by your first post) where, instead of targeting TR, you started letting loose at the PS3 hardware and PS3 fanboys. So much for not being anti-PS, in spite of all your claims to the contrary.

    ""MUCH MORE POWERFUL" than the 360"

    I don't remember where on EG I said that. Can you refresh my memory? If possible, a link. As to power, as I told Calgon, I'll believe him if and when I see better graphics on the 360. And I reiterate, I am NOT against better technical performance on any console. Until then, you can keep chanting your hypothetical lack of talent on the 360 dev team and hypothetical need for/lack of a 4-year development cycle. As, at the start of this gen, when the PS3 had few good exclusive games, 360 fans were accusing PS3 fanboys of banging the hypothetical "future games" drum, you seem to be doing something similar at present - although you seem to implying "possible games" rather than future ones.

    "since he doesn't cut any slack to anyone who dares to suggest the PS3 is not as powerful"

    If that was the case and if I was indeed that touchy about the PS3's hypothetical power, I would have a full-time job here on EG's comments section. You can believe what you want to - if the only thing that would make you feel my viewpoint is any less valid than yours is believing (you don't accuse me outright, but you leave very few stones unturned) that I'm a PS3 fanboy, then knock yourself out. I know what I am, and that I AM actually capable of enjoying games on the 360, unlike some gamers here who have a hard time saying anything good about the "other" console.
    Edited by 1 at 22/06/09 @ 16:40

  • knightmt #142 3 years ago

    Man alive those comments are long.

  • Yaz #143 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    "That's because I mostly ignore those articles of hyperbole."

    Same here regarding the 360. If someone comes in saying the 360 is far more powerful than the PS3, I ignore it, since it's obvious that person is doing it to stir up an argument. However, those who say the same about the PS3 are usually serious, they really believe it, and as I shall show, you were amongst such gamers.

    "instead of targeting TR, you started letting loose at the PS3 hardware and PS3 fanboys."

    I targetted TR for countless hours at the time they made comments about how they could get twice the performance out of the PS3 if their game was a PS3 exclusive and therefore led to fanboys jumping upon such comments as proof of the PS3 being significantly more powerful, especially with reports interpreting their comments to mean the 360 is holding the PS3 back. I don't need to go through that all over again because Ghostbusters has now been released and so the argument has moved on. Hence I'm happy today to have a go at those same fanboys who used TR as a means to bash the 360 prior to the game release.

    NOTHING in my post was bashing the PS3 hardware itself, I was bashing the fanboys and the GAME Ghostbusters' performance on the console. It is a FACT that the PS3 version of Ghostbusters doesn't match the 360 version, like so many multiformat games. That's ALL I was stating. I would have been happy to go into the reasons why, where part had been explained by TR already and reported already, and so there was nothing to stop you bringing up such points instead of jumping to conclusions.

    [link url=http://www.joys tiq.com/2009/06/17/ghostbusters-on-ps3-lags-behind-360-versi on-developer-explains/
    ]http://ww w.joystiq.com/2009/06/17/ghostb...[/link]

    "I don't remember where on EG I said that. Can you refresh my memory? If possible, a link"

    On QJ, last year, under your alias of Thinker;

    [link url=htt p://ps3.qj.net/EA-s-Robinson-Crysis-on-consoles-indefinite-P C-will-rise-in-next-few-years/pg/49/aid/115283
    ]http://ps 3.qj.net/EA-s-Robinson-Crysis-o...[/link]

    To summarise, this was a topic about Crysis, for which the FIRST post came from a gamer claiming it should be possible on PS3 but not on the 360 (or if is was, then downgraded from the PS3 version). I immediately corrected this, saying both consoles have similar power (yes with the PS3 having a slight edge), hence the 360 could handle Crysis if the PS3 could.

    You took issue with my comments, effectively saying you're fed up with my frequent claims that there's only a slight difference in power between the 360 and PS3 because, according to you, "the PS3 architecture is MUCH MORE POWERFUL than the 360s". You compared the CPUs with the most flawed analysis I'd seen for quite some time, and yet despite not understanding the hardware, you dismissed the views of all the multi-format developers who say the power is similar because you say "the perception of the 360 being similar to PS3 power-wise is based on Developer's initial experiences with the Consoles". Sure, all those devs are completely incapable of analysing and understanding much of the hardware they're working on, and yet you can manage to do so and conclude that the PS3 is "MUCH MORE POWERFUL".

    Can you really not see why I called that being arrogant at the time? You got upset back then because I called you arrogant, however to be arrogant means to have 'an exaggerrated view of one's own abilities or importance'. By claiming multi-format devs lack the ability to judge the relative overall power of the 360 and PS3 and yet claiming YOU have the ability to do just that, _is_ being arrogant.

    So regarding that Crysis topic, let's fast forward 15 months to today shall we, and let's see which point of view regarding Crysis on the consoles is closer to the truth. Is DNAgent right that the PS3 could handle Crysis but not the 360? Or is Yaz correct that with both consoles being of similar power (a view you objected to btw), then that means both consoles should be able to handle Crysis equally well;

    'Crysis 2 Will Be "Similar" On 360, PS3'

    [link url=http://www.escapistmagazine.c om/news/view/92160-Crysis-2-Will-Be-Similar-On-360-PS3 ]http://ww w.escapistmagazine.com/news/vie...[/link]

    Quote: "The PC version will outscale and outperform the consoles. Between each console I believe the experience will be finally both next-generation, but similar experience"

    So just like my posts from E3 2005, it seems I was right after all. ;)
    Edited by 2 at 22/06/09 @ 23:08

  • Calgon #144 3 years ago

    @funkateer - My point was your opinion isnt a very well supported one... its more speculation on your part that GOW2 is as good as it will get, some of what you have said here really has been off the mark too which is why I commented.

    Now I have to admit I never developed on Xenon (I did on other PPC though), so if I'm missing something I'm open to learning. But really, I don't know how order of execution or altivec/vmx changes the point I was trying to make.

    This is just were there is room for growth on 360(its come from XNA's talks aimed at developers themselves rather than PR press talk, they've collected data from devs and compared it with their own research as theyve gone along from the sounds of it) and its not the sort of thing you shoehorn into an engine already built with PC as the lead platform in mind(ie optimised for rather than built for) thats not the way to go about it.(if you are as experienced as you said you were you should know this)

    Yes consoles are getting more PC like in alot of ways but thats nothing to do with this arguement really, you clearly haven't put enough thought into what you are trying to say.

    The process of having the main core in the cell distribute work load across the SPU's is very different.

    Quite frankly this really isnt the only major reason PS3 devs have needed to do it to get the results they wanted, you think it takes them 3 years just for that? I was reading from Insomniac 2 years ago who said they cracked it back then. There's enough differences like I outlined between the 360s CPU and the ones you will find in a PC to go the speciallised route on 360 too as they have with PS3 so heavily.

    Well here is the thing trying to dismiss 360s VMX128 as altivec or irrelevant doesnt help you, there is 128 VMX registers(the VMX128 in 360 was built for gaming, it will be usefull for animation, lighting, skinning and perhaps AI) in each thread of those 3 cores and to get the most out of them requires a highly parellelised way of thinking or as they put it in the presentation thinking of them like 10 or more seperate processors, now with that in mind using them most effectively WILL be similar to how the SPUs are used(1 main core tied to a number of specialised processors*specialised in pretty similar ways too ;) vector maths and the like* that need data fed to them in a similar fashion).

    You also make it sound like In order of execution compared to out of order execution isnt a big deal when the majority of PC devs will find that way of working difficult.(a bad decision on MS and Sony's part as many of the top figurehead devs have agreed but it was also probably down to cost, which console manufacturers are much more constricted with)

    My point was that I think especially in the case of the X360, you should not expect too much as these type of consoles (X360 and PS3)

    Well let me be clear Im not expecting miracles out of the hardware(I too beleive the "untapped potential" term Sony dreamed up should be dropped because we will have to accept PCs are generally alot more powerfull and more capable than either of these consoles) but you could get the same kind of improvements that the PS3 has been getting and an improvement over the bar that GOW2 has set.(although we will have to remember PS3 started out pretty poorly, 360 the improvement wont be quite as drastic but there IS just as strong a case to be made)

    You are entitled to your opinion, as far as visual fidelity goes GOW2 would be a good benchmark for either of the platforms where its strengths are I've nothing against UE3x(even though it has its failings compared to others), I think my case was far more well argued and insightfull than your own though. So I'm pretty confident in saying it would be worth it if they did invest more heavily in proprietary game engines for the 360(well it would please their fanbase, sell more 1st party software and show they are still strongly supporting the platform which could shift more consoles)... ie it would safetly leave UE3.x behind on the 360 platform and match or exceed any quality of visuals you are likely to get out of the PS3. I mean by the sounds of it Cryengine2 might prove atleast one of your statements to be wrong on its own and thats a multi-format engine too.

  • funkateer #145 3 years ago

    @Calgon

    "My point was your opinion isnt a very well supported one..."

    Well then, I gave lots of factual arguments you simply ignore, one of the most important ones being that performance critical code is just a minor part of a typical gaming engine.
    You're focussing so much on micro level stuff, and while you're correct in a lot of your argumentation, I still have the feeling you're missing the big picture.

    Even if you'd rewrite all performance critical code in UE3 using VMX128 and all (which *is* a game specific dialect of altivec if you ask me), you'd still be using UE3 for the most part *and* make the most of X360. No need to rewrite the vast majority of the code for the ground up, because most of the code will *not* benefit from platform specific optimizations.

    Also note that my main point was not really about PS3 vs X360 hw (let's say that was a side remark).
    Also on PS3 the difference won't be that great (let's face it, KZ2 doesn't look that much better than from a technical pov than UT3).

    Maybe I was not clear or something, but my main point was that rewriting a PC based engine from the ground up to fully make use of the X360 doesn't make much sense and will not bring miracles.

    I'd say a better reason to design an engine from the ground up is to create an engine specific for your *game*.

  • Calgon #146 3 years ago

    funkateer - I've ignored nothing, I've looked long and hard at what you are trying to say. If you would have said it wouldnt be worth the extra money that it would cost, for someone like Epic to re-write the engine just for 360, then thats a stronger arguement but this arguement hasn't been about the costs, its been about the performance. You have failed to put a convincing arguement across backed up with any facts that support it strongly enough from my point of veiw(I *did* have to fill you in on similarities and facts you were unaware of, like the similarities of how VMX128 works on 360 compared to the SPUs and its strengths, VMX128 is much changed since the old Altivec, even the 'standard VMX' versions have --which have changed with *every* new chip they've put out apperently-- so theres no point comparing the two like it means anything to the devs because it doesnt, very few devs are experienced with it to begin with and even they would have alot of learning to do.)

    From MS' position or other publishers/devs doing exclusives on 360, Im not budging on that you could get considerably better performance out of the 360, you are missing the point of what it is to be a true console game engine... you can build around or build out the limitations and you can maximise the strengths of the architecture *and* the hardware itself.(get the most out every clock clycle in the way that suits your game best) Ive already conceeded that there wont be miracles there wont be from PS3 either but there will be clear improvement. I think the point is there's a chance that PS3 can look stronger due to the advantage of having more effort put in to proprietary software/tech than there has been on 360 *not* because the hype was all true and PS3 really more powerfull.

    I agree there *was* a stronger case for PS3 but thats *only* because performance was bad ie considerably worse than 360 in some cases. I disagree that there wouldnt be enough improvement over GOW2 going the specialised route for more of 360s exclusives(I dont expect Epic to do it though, they are a supplier of multiformat engines-tools thats not what they are in business to do.), infact Im pretty positive you are wrong on that, if that is what you are trying to say.

  • SaberEdge #147 3 years ago

    The sad thing is, most of the games in which the PS3 version does manage to more or less equal the 360 version are usually kind of mediocre-looking titles to begin with.

    Nearly all of the really graphically advanced multi-platform games like Assassin's Creed, Bioshock and Resident Evil 5 look and perform better on the 360.

    This makes me worry that the only way some developers are able to achieve platform parity is by reducing the quality of both versions.

    The PS3 has a inferior memory architecture and less actual available memory, as well as a weaker GPU. And frankly, getting good performance out of the Cell's SPUs takes considerable time and effort....time that many developers don't have.

  • Sn@ke #148 3 years ago

    1. xbox 360 is producing more polygons than ps3 (xbox 360 - 500.000.000 & ps3 275.000.000)
    2. xbox 360 has more memory
    3. its easier to program on xbox 360

    thats why the games are better on xbox 360 console! upcoming games like Rage, doom4,bioshock 2 will be with better resolution, and frame rate and texture quality on xbox360. already programmers of id said that they have some problems with ps3 memory, because it's not enough for upcomoing gams like Rage and doom4

  • EllenD #149 3 years ago

    Well, slightly off-topic, but I own both a PS3 and a 360, but I like the PS3 better for the simple fact that all games are region free. I order a lot from overseas like Amazon and Play-Asia, but with XBox titles, I always have to check whether it can be played in my region.

    As my PS3 doesn't sound like a 747 taking off unlike my 360 and has better controllers IMHO, I prefer to buy PS3 games when they are available for both platforms. Only when it is much cheaper or, of course, an exclusive, I consider buying it for my 360.

  • funkateer #150 3 years ago

    @Calgon

    Ok, I seem to have trouble putting my point across. I too am talking about performance, not about cost.

    I am *not* arguing that you won't get extra performance by using specialized code, and I'm *not* argueing that VMX128 can help performance.

    What I am arguing is the in my opinion false statement that a cross platform engine is by definition not optimal for the console and that if you'd rewrite an engine (UE3 in this case) specifically for X360 from the ground up you would see great improvements.

    Point in case is the simple fact that a small parts of the engine is performance critical code.

    Who says Epic did not already optimize such UE3 parts for X360 using platform specific assembly? In any case, don't think for one minute that UE3 on X360 was simply a 'recompile on another platform' job!

    Do you know how much of that specific VMX assembly code would actually need to be written in an X360 optimal engine? I say well less than 5% and most of the code BY FAR will remain largely platform independant C++ (or even interpreted game logic scripts). Simply because there's no noticable advantage to be gained from the parts that the CPU hardly spends its time in anyway.
    Not only wouldn't it be worth the money, the difference would most likely hardly be noticable (if at all).

    To be honest I think I provided a lot of factual, even undeniable arguments, and I honestly don't know why you dismiss my arguments so easily by saying it's all just wrong somehow as you clearly seem quite knowledgable.

  • Darren #151 3 years ago

    @Bloodhunter - "PC needs to be added in, because it would win hands down."

    I'd love to see the PC included in these articles but only if the hardware specs are also disclosed otherwise the results would be meaningless. Even then complaining about a poor framerate and no AA on a dual-core PC with a GeForce 8800 would be irrelevant because there are much better processors and graphics cards out there that could run that game with ease. The truth is that the PC will run *any* game better than a console so long as you can afford the components needed to do so!

  • man.the.king #152 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    Sorry for getting back so late, but I was having some problems on my computer, my Zonealarm Forcefield protected Firefox crashed and burned after a hard-reset of my Laptop and I had some problems getting back everything.

    "I targetted TR for countless hours at the time they made comments about how they could get twice the performance out of the PS3 if their game was a PS3 exclusive"

    Guess I missed that, as I avoided that article (as I mentioned in an earlier post) since that article seemed to be an invitation for a flamefest.

    "NOTHING in my post was bashing the PS3 hardware itself"

    It didn't sound that way, but if you say so...

    "On QJ, last year, under your alias of Thinker"

    Oh okay, that brings back things a bit. As to my argument (and whether it was flawed), I accept that time has corrected me rather than you, but I still stand by my argument (not as to the PS3's power, but insofar as human psychology was concerned) that early experiences with the (arguably complicated) PS3 hardware may have turned off some developers, hence their dissatisfaction with it. But, as to the other points, I concede you are right (as far as that debate was concerned).

    "So just like my posts from E3 2005, it seems I was right after all. ;)"

    Sure, for that topic, but, as to your posts regarding the hypothetical 360 game with a 2-3+ year development timespan and the supposed talent that 360 developers lack (according to you; I think 360 devs are talented enough), I will still say, as I have told Calgon, that I will believe it when I see it.
    Edited by 1 at 25/06/09 @ 03:55

  • RKOwned #153 3 years ago

    I do wonder how long till we have them Equal ine very game. Every tiem they do this, more and more teh PS3 is closing the gap. 360 is now only SLIGHTLY winning in most cases. Unlike 06/07 when it was Unanamous. also Sn@ke, thsoe games will be equal on both. ID already said theyre gonna get RAGE equal, its jsut gonna take a bit of work. DONT assume this applys to every game and that they will be better on 360, tkae it ona game by game basis. also, you are miss informed. both 360 and PS3 have 512 MB of RAM. also, jsut becasue its easier dosent mean theyll always be better. Mirrors edge and Burnout were better on PS3. also, i can tell a large Majority of commentors are 360 fanboys taht didnt bother reading teh article and are overblowing it making it sound like 360 CLEARLY won.
    Edited by 4 at 25/06/09 @ 08:35

  • Sn@ke #154 3 years ago

    RKOwned,
    the CPU of the PS3 can never access more than 256MB of RAM at any point. The Xbox 360 CPU is free to access up to 512MB of RAM. also the GPU of xbox 360 can take advantage of 512mb of ram. the GPU of ps3 can only access 256 mb of memory. thats why texture quality and frame rate is better on xbox 360 olmost in every game.
    id programmers first said that the RAge would be same on both consoles, but if you read the recent statment from id they say that they are having problems with ram of ps3.
    thats why I said that new games will be better and with better frame and resolution on xbox 360.

  • Calgon #155 3 years ago

    funkateer - It looks to me that 360 software development in general is outside your level of expertise, you didnt even know how VMX128 was implimented on 360 a few posts ago. I have atleast taken the time to learn from the people who have worked on the platform, instead you are *assuming* quite alot.(all hardware and software is the same to you, except bizarrely you are kind of forgetting some of your comments on the PS3, which is making me a little suspicious) "I say 5%" What do you take me for? If you had that kind credibility to make statements like that(which you dont at this point) it would *still* be a complete geusstimation, there aren't any *facts* to back this up, I already know this.

    To be honest I think I provided a lot of factual, even undeniable arguments

    You've given *some* yes(I wouldnt say alot though.) which I havent tried to argue with(some of which arent sp relevant, alot of which arent really *as* relevant as the ones Ive brought up.),you've also gave alot of speculation and opinion too which is not supported by people working on the platform... After all that I have learned on 360 development so far, I can only say your arguements aren't convincing enough to change my mind.

    I will bet money on you being wrong on this, GOW2 is not the limit, building from the gound up will get more than 5%(it does depend I guess on what you are talking about... 5% more what? Polygons? Characters? Physics ect...), I know from XNA themselve's the type of perfomance increase is "several times"(or 700% actual quotes) than they'd been seeing at the time the presentation was given i.e. without making the most of VMX128. I know that it hasnt seen great use because XNA have kept tabs on devs working on the platform and their progress. I say its unlikely that UE3 is able to make the most of it because I know how difficult it is to get the most out of it, it's the same reason PS3 exclusive do better with proprietary engines.(you yourself said it makes sense on PS3... I show you exactly why getting the most out of the it on those 6 threads is just as difficult if not more so. It even sounds much more complicated when you think about it properly, streaming data to them in an organised way will bring its own challenges.) If you choose to chuck some vmx code in afterwards just so you can say youve optimised for it... then thats *why* you are only seeing 5%.(infact it was one of the very things they touched upon, the whole talk was about getting devs to change their approach)

    Again my point is not that there will be miracles(the areas that will benifit are Floating point, animation, lighting skinning, DSP ect... everything that lends well to vector maths, the same areas the SPUs excell at.), my point is there *is* just as strong a case to do it as there is on the PS3.(well near enough) I've explained clearly how devs would beable to get more out of the XCPU(and it is specific to the XCPU in how best to implement it)... but the most optimal way of doing it *is* building a new engine and while they are at it they could make the most of the Cache-locking, shader export, EDram and the unified shaders archectecture to go with it.(Which UE3 does not, there may be some VMX128 code in there, perhaps this is how they were able to increase the number of enemies on screen by such a large amount but they wont be getting the most that they could out of it.)

    For costs you had a point, for performance you *are* wrong Im sorry to say, the good thing about my position is, there's plenty of time for devs to prove you wrong... i.e. all we need is a game that tops GOW2 on 360 and most of your arguement falls apart.

    So here we will have to agree to disagree(you have an opinion and so do I), Im quite happy to do that but please do not try and claim my opinions havent been supported in this discussion.(which are based on a good understanding of the hardware, comments from XNA who are *the* specialists and the devs comments too who work with the hardware from day to day in the first place... I think thats a much more solid foundation.)

    Gamefest on VMX128

    Seems that the audio is no longer available and the presentation doesnt seem as long and in depth, deffinately been trimmed which is a shame, one of the diagrams I remember was extreemly helpfull to the point I was trying to make but there's still enough there to back up what I've said.

    Gamefest SSE and VMX instructions
    This was more about SSE really but does shed light on the similarities and differences between VMX, also answers the question if VMX128 is like the Altivec found on G5's... answer is as I said.(It specifically says do not confuse the two, they are related which is pretty obvious but they are *very* different.) Also although there are some instructions they can share between SSE and VMX128, which would make sense for multi-format development, there are some big differences between them and how they work best, in addition to the other differences between the XCPU and x86 chips.

    This would mean exclusive that devs who are able to structure their implementation of VMX128 at the core of the engine in the most opitmal way(rather than building with both in mind and focusing on trying to write as much code that can be shared between SSE/PC as possible to save time) and due to the nature of consoles devs who will be able rely much more heavily on it for performance(since they know every 360 has it where PC devs have to be concerened with compatibilies) *will* see much better performance all around.

    Lets not forget this is just the CPU too, there's things they could do with the GPU and the memory on specialised engines that you wont see in a multi-platform engine.
    Edited by 1 at 25/06/09 @ 15:31

  • RKOwned #156 3 years ago

    but SN@KE, to assume that all new games are gonna be better on 360 is rather Foolish. weve seen game better on PS3. It depends how you code and Develop it, if you lead on PS3, or if you dont have a LEad SKU, then theyll be the same. Plus, PS3 seems to have3 no trouble producing Visually superior games with its so called Lackluster GPU. And I doubt you have games on 360 that use all the RAM for one thing like GPU and CPU. (if thats what your implying of course.) eventually, Disc space is going to hidner 360 games and maybe even multipalts on 360, causing them to Compress so much that Quality is Sacraficed on PS3. Honestly, you cant assume 360 will always have the better version. I think RAGE si gonna so clsoe on both that you arent going to notice a differnce unless you take a Microscope Side by Side comaprison. and really, the differences nowadays are rather Negligable, adn most multipalts run at teh same Resolution.
    Edited by 2 at 25/06/09 @ 21:27

  • Sn@ke #157 3 years ago

    YES RKOwned , WE HAVE SEEN 3-4 GAMES BETTER ON PS3 OUT OF 100 GAMES. SO WHAT. I'M NOT 360 FUN! I HAVE BOTH CONSOLE. I'M A GAMER WHO WANTS TO PLAY GOOD GAMES. BUT WHEN I HAVE GAMES ON BOTH CONSOLE AND I SEE THAT THE SAME GAME IS BETTER ON 360 WHAT CAN I SAY? I WILL PLAY ON 360, BEACAUSE I CANT PLAY GAMES WITH RESOLUTION 520P (GHOST BUSTERS) AND FRAME RATE BELOW 30 FPS (RESIDENT EVIL 5, DEAD SPACE, BIOSHOCK). YES WE HAVE SEEN SOME VERY GOOD TITLES ON PS3 BUT ONLY 3-4 EXCLUSIVE TITLES. THERE ARE 20 VERY GOOD MULTIPLATFORM GAMES WERE PS3 PERFORMANCE IS POOR.

  • funkateer #158 3 years ago

    @Calgon

    I think you misunderstood my '5%' argument. I said 5% of code.

    Sure, it's a guestimate, I'll give you that, but it's based on the undeniable fact that a small part of code is responsible for performance critical tasks. The 80/20 rule and all. Having 5% of VMX128 code in a heavily optimized engine doesn't sound unreasonable at all, given the domain of VMX128.
    However it isn't reasonable to assume that someone's going to write an entire gaming engine using optimized VMX128. I'm sure you can optimize isolated bits of code to run at 700% the performance, but that doesn't mean that you can get a 700% performance gain overall. At worst it can be unnoticable in the overall performance.

    My statements are based on the fact that the way to optimize code is generally this:
    1) Profile your code
    2) Define your bottlenecks
    3) Optimize
    4) Rinse, repeat

    Those bottlenecks are usually *SMALL PARTS OF CODE* in the big picture. So also SMALL PARTS in the context of UE3. The rest of the code works in a platform independant way. Game logic, the game's object model, geometry loading, script execution, GUI system, game saving, scene graph, etc, lots of that such stuff won't need optimization and yet take up a relatively large part of the engine. Once again, rewriting code that don't show up in your performance graphs won't make any difference.

    I think things like VMX128 or unified memory aren't changing the afformentioned 80/20 rule. They just provide means to optimize those small parts in different ways. Probably more efficient ways.
    If UE3 suits GeOW games, then I'm sure optimizing the hell out of that 20% of UE3 code makes a lot more sense than rewriting from scratch with roughly the same result.
    Now if UE3 isn't sufficient for the game anymore, then that's a different story, but not what this discussion is about.

    But I see my arguments don't come across. I think you're focusing too much on details that don't really make a difference in the whole argument. Note this doesn't mean in any way that I'm dismissing VMX128.

    "all hardware and software is the same to you..."
    No it's not.
    I've been developing software since the eighties (damn I feel old now ;-) in languages ranging from ASM for different CPU architectures to C, C++, Java, C# etc, and I'm a certified software architect. I've been in the gaming industry until a few years ago (I sold my soul to contracting), so I know what a gaming engine is, what it does, and where the typical bottlenecks are.
    That doesn't make me know everything, and if you'd know me better you'd know that I love to be proven wrong, but so far you haven't, even though you're clearly well informed about a lot of things.

    I'll study the links you provided (thanks for that, I appreciate it!), but until they change my opinion, let's agree to disagree.

  • Calgon #159 3 years ago

    @funkateer - I think I did misunderstand you a little on the 5% remark, I still say these "small parts" are the hardest to get right though(and you can spend a lot of time doing just that which is why some scrap what they have and start again) and sometimes the only way to do it seems to be when they build from the ground up, perhaps you are right in Epics case if they did it that way it would no longer be UE3 though if thats what you mean.(Im sure they'd beable to do more with the machine though but then again they arent heavily invested in 360 alone)

    When I was fishing around for some sources earlier, I am now left wondering about if MS *has* actually been working on a 360 engine behind the scenes after reading a roumer(it was as recent as last week the post was made but very vague as there's NDAs as they put it) and noticing that this years Gamefest has been pushed back to the start of 2010... perhaps XNA have been busy working on something?(it was them that made them physics/deformation demos the E3 before launch if anyone remembers that)

    It could be that the person who said it was completely making it up but I feel if MS are to move devs off UE3 onto a fully fledged up to date 360 engine, the timing is perfect for it at this point in the generation, it could also explain why theres been an upgrade to the dev kits too(1GB to give some leg room for the devs to work with) and I would be most pleased if this turns out to be true personally.(They will have done exactly what I thought they needed to.)

    Here's hoping anyway.
    Edited by 3 at 26/06/09 @ 20:20

  • Yaz #160 3 years ago

    Some interesting discussions going on here. Nice one guys.

    Anyway...

    @man.the.king

    Sorry I haven't been able to respond as yet, heavy work commitments this week, but I'll definitely try to find some time this weekend (since I may not get a chance next week either). :|

  • Calgon #161 3 years ago

    Ok I've found some more info on this new engine roumer... Im officially excited!

    Xbox Relaunch Secrets

    "So that's Microsoft's first initiative. *referring to the extra memory in the new kits* Something else might have surprised developers when they received their new Xbox 360 development kit; a new set of tools, or more accurately a new engine. According to our insider source, Microsoft has been on working a new internal Xbox 360 engine, which has been nick-named the X-Engine.

    You see, the most common engine used for Xbox 360 development was Epic's Unreal Engine 3. It might look great in Gears of War, but the engine does not shine in every developer's hands and it also doesn't have key features to take true advantage of the Xbox 360 quirks.

    Our source explains that Sony's PlayStation 3 tools (named Edge) have been picking up steam, and are now taking true advantage of the platform's make-up, especially the consoles CPU, Kutaragi-san's infamous Cell. As for the Xbox 360, it was lacking an engine that took advantage of it in the same way; a hole Microsoft hopes to plug with their new X-Engine. We're told that the engine isn't just a new set of special effects; it's actually a whole new way to develop for the system: a new first party engine design."

    Sounds good to me. :)
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/09 @ 20:36

  • RKOwned #162 3 years ago

    Again Snake, its more than 4 or 5. You cant assume theyre all gonna be better on 360. As weve seen with these, were seeing elss and less Difference between them. 360 is no longer Unanimously winning. Id give it a few mroe before we see them saying both are the same. Devs are getting better and better with the tech every day. And when the hellw as Dead Space below 30 FPS? it ran great for me. Your problem is your tryign to apss off your OPINON (the fact you think 360 will always have better Multipalts) as fact.
    Edited by 1 at 28/06/09 @ 02:56

  • m0thr4 #163 3 years ago

    I disagree that Sony has first party titles "looking by far and away superior to 360 ones". I've just not seen any evidence of it, beyond Sony fanboy rants about Killzone 2 (with which I was distinctly underwhelmed from a visual point-of-view).

    However, I also disagree (with one or two exceptions, as reported in these Face-Off articles) that 3rd party titles are significantly "better" on the Xbox 360 than the PS3. If they were: believe me, I would be consistently buying the Xbox 360 versions instead of the PS3 versions, and I'm just not.... for reasons that I suppose will only really be apparent to PS3 owners, so I won't bother mentioning them (yet) again here.

  • m0thr4 #164 3 years ago

    Sn@ke
    the CPU of the PS3 can never access more than 256MB of RAM at any point. The Xbox 360 CPU is free to access up to 512MB of RAM. also the GPU of xbox 360 can take advantage of 512mb of ram. the GPU of ps3 can only access 256 mb of memory. thats why texture quality and frame rate is better on xbox 360 olmost in every game

    LOL... if it were as simple as you make out, then the "texture quality" (as you put it) and frame rate would be better in every game... not almost every game.

    But, of course, it's not quite as straightforward as that, so lets all breathe a sigh of relief that the clever people make the video games and people like you simply complain about them in Internet forums.
    Edited by 1 at 29/06/09 @ 15:56

  • Yaz #165 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    I'm pleased to see that the passage of time has seen you change your mind over issues like the relative power of the PS3 compared to the 360 and Microsoft's supposed influence over websites and reviews. Perhaps now you can appreciate why I clashed with individuals like yourself back then for challenging views which I knew to be wrong (and still do so today). It’s not that I was being negative towards the PS3, but that I was negative in relation to your stance on such matters. Hence if you look back on the issues we clashed on, I think you'll find I've been proven correct over time (well, for those issues where proof is now available that is).

    As a result, I'm more than happy for anyone to wade through my post history (both here and on QJ), because they'll see I've been consistent throughout. So from Killzone 2 (after E3 2005), Crysis (as in that QJ link), to the power of PS3 vs 360, to Blu-ray vs DVD, 1080p, compression, and many other console related issues, and most recently, Ghostbusters, I’ve been proven correct (not because I'm clever, but because I had a more realistic view of the relative power and features between both consoles).

    For Ghostbusters, my alarms bells sounded when Terminal Reality's Mark Randell said the following;

    [link url=http://www.vg247.com/ 2008/04/28/sierra-spring-break-08-ps3-exclusivity-would-have -allowed-double-the-amount-of-objects-on-screen-says-ghostbu sters-dev/
    ]http://ww w.vg247.com/2008/04/28/sierra-s...[/link]

    Fanboys loved those comments, but I knew it was a distorted viewpoint (you could also do more if it were a 360-only game). At the time, I said I felt he was really directing his comments at Sony, hoping to be noticed and then snapped up as an exclusive dev with an injection of extra resources from them.

    Anyway, needless to say, the point I made back then was… if what he was saying was true, then together with the fact that the PS3 is the lead version, surely the PS3 version of Ghostbusters should at the very least be the best version. I said let’s wait and see because "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". The last thing I expected was for the PS3 version of Ghostbusters to be worse that the 360 version, but the fact that it is negated all the nonsense Mark was saying.

    Forgive me if it sounds like I'm blowing my own trumpet here, but when you’re faced with an avalanche of abuse just for speaking the truth, it is rather satisfying when the truth finally comes out.

    I’ll respond about the talent of devs later, but for now I’ll simply ask you to put aside thoughts of 360 vs PS3 on this issue and focus on just the PS3 for now. Who do _you_ consider to be the most talented devs on the PS3, and by that I mean the devs who always seem to be able to push Sony’s consoles further than almost anyone else. Once you’ve compiled that list, think about what separated these devs from all the other devs on the PS3 (and please don't say _all_ the other devs are lazy ;)).

    Edited by 3 at 01/07/09 @ 06:34

  • Yaz #166 3 years ago

    @Calgon

    That's really interesting information. It's the first time I've heard of the X-Engine. Thanks.

  • man.the.king #167 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    "who always seem to be able to push Sony’s consoles further than almost anyone else"

    I'll answer your question in more detail later on, but for now, I can say that for me, the answer is not straightforward. Rather than an ability to "push" the console, shouldn't the talent involved be able to squeeze the greatest performance without having to unduly strain the machine? I am thinking here of Naughty Dog, who have made one game that has some of the best graphics I've seen on any console, and yet does not even require an install, as some others seem to do (MGS4 and others come to mind).

    "think about what separated these devs from all the other devs on the PS3"

    I think I know what you are leading up to, but I personally think Infinity Ward (Modern Warfare), Criterion (Burnout Paradise) and EA (Dead Space) did a mighty fine job of getting performance out of the PS3, and they might not fit the profile you had in mind for your answer.

  • Yaz #168 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    "Rather than an ability to "push" the console, shouldn't the talent involved be able to squeeze the greatest performance without having to unduly strain the machine?"

    Hmmm, I'm not really sure what you mean by that. The consoles themselves are not under any strain they can't cope with, regardless of how much they're made to work (faulty hardware aside). The only 'strain' to be seen is in respect to lower performance compared to desired performance, i.e. slowdown.

    In the context of our discussion, pushing a console is about making the existing hardware do more than before/others, and hence to modify your words, I would say the talent involved is being able to squeeze the greatest performance out of the same hardware, and that's all. Hence Naughty Dog are an excellent example, where they were amongst the few devs who were able to do the same on the PS2 last gen. Polyphony are another example, as are Kojima's MGS team.

    As I mentioned before, these devs place getting the best graphical performance out of the machine higher on their priority list, and this is evident in their interviews and podcasts;

    [link url=http://www.gamereactor.eu/articles /1071/Interview:+Naughty+Dog+on+Uncharted+2/
    ]http://ww w.gamereactor.eu/articles/1071/...[/link]

    Quote: "Naughty Dog has a fifteen-year tradition of pushing the PlayStation hardware to its limits, and Uncharted 2 sees us setting new gold standards in limit-pushing!"

    This is something I've heard from ND time and time again over the years, including the fact that they hire the best people they can find for purposes of pushing the hardware to the limits! (They said that in an interview somewhere, I'll try to find it later).

    And listen to Konami's podcast about E3 dated 11th June;

    [link url=http://www.k jp.konami.jp/gs/hideoblog_e/
    ]http://www.k jp.konami.jp/gs/hideoblog_e/
    [/link]

    Pay most attention to minutes [6:18 - 7:13] and [23:13 to 24:24].

    Again, an example of a dev who has a reputation for producing some of the best graphics on the console they're working on because they always strive to push the hardware to the max.

    I know you may still dispute the point I was making regarding these devs, but I do believe they (and a few others) stand out from the pack.

    You said "I personally think Infinity Ward (Modern Warfare), Criterion (Burnout Paradise) and EA (Dead Space) did a mighty fine job of getting performance out of the PS3, and they might not fit the profile you had in mind for your answer."

    Yes and no. Yes, because they did a great job of getting performance out of the PS3, however they got equal performance out of the 360 as well. And no, because I don't consider any of them to have pushed either console to the levels achieved by ND, Guerilla, etc.

    Hence it comes down to the question, who are the 360 exclusive devs who stand out from the pack when it comes down to pushing the hardware to the limits? I just can't think of the 360 equivalent of Naughty Dog or Polyphony, not even last gen on the XBox. :-|
    Edited by 3 at 02/07/09 @ 21:14

  • man.the.king #169 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    "Hmmm, I'm not really sure what you mean by that. The consoles themselves are not under any strain they can't cope with, regardless of how much they're made to work (faulty hardware aside)"

    Yes, maybe I wasn't too clear there. What I was trying to reference is the apparent ease with which a Dev should be able to get performance out of a console without having to jump through hoops trying to figure out ways to squeeze out every last drop of performance they can. In that case, I guess the strain would be on the devs :)

    "who are the 360 exclusive devs who stand out from the pack when it comes down to pushing the hardware to the limits?"

    Peter Molyneux comes to mind, as does Epic. Of course, Peter did NOT do a good job of getting Fable 2 to perform graphically/technically IMO, but then should we chalk all lack of performance to the devs themselves? To my knowledge, PM is developing exclusively for the 360, and as far as I know has been given what looks to be carte blanche as far as budget and resources are concerned by MS, since it appears they think of him as their golden goose. And what about SE? Did they not develop their last few games exclusively for the 360 (pretty rotten of them to apparently dump the PS3 for these games imo, but what's done is done)? And as far as I know, SE are pretty much up there with the cream of the crop as far as squeezing performance out of consoles is concerned.

    And maybe MS is unfortunate in not having these superlative devs on their side. But it appears to me as if you are trying to prove that the 360 is capable of matching ANYTHING the PS3 can do. For that, all that I can say is, at the present moment, I do not see anything on the 360 that matches the best of the PS3 (currently out). If I do see anything on my 360 that matches what's out there on my PS3, I'll revise my opinion.

    By the way, I was wondering, how about using our Eurogamer messaging/mail to continue our discussion instead of sticking to this comments section.

  • Yaz #170 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    [ Disclaimer: Friday night - Every answer given here was written under the influence of alcohol. :) ]

    " In that case, I guess the strain would be on the devs :)"

    Yes, I guess the strain is on the devs :)

    However, whilst I understand what you mean now, I don't believe that out of all the games which were considered to have pushed the hardware to the limit upon release, that the devs achieved it with relative ease. By it's nature, pushing hardware to the limit is extremely difficult work which does require jumping through hoops to squeeze out extra performance. Only a handful of devs have the resources, time and determination to make pushing the hardware to the limit a high priority, and of course the talent to make it happen.

    "Peter [Molyneux] did NOT do a good job of getting Fable 2 to perform graphically/technically IMO"

    And therefore Lionhead are not a 360 exclusive dev who pushes the hardware to the limits. They stand out from the pack for creativity and originality, but not for pushing the hardware further than others on the 360.

    As for Epic. Yes they have a superb multi-format game engine, responsible for some of the best graphics seen on the 360, but also one which gives equal performance on 360 and PS3 (as seen with many multi-format games). It's not a game engine written from the ground up for the 360, unlike the engines for Uncharted, Killzone and MGS on the PS3, and so whilst the game series Gears of War is exclusive to the 360, the game engine is not exclusive.

    "SE are pretty much up there with the cream of the crop as far as squeezing performance out of consoles is concerned"

    For the FF series, but not their other games.

    The FF series is to SE what MGS is to Konami, so these are the games we have to look at, not the 'lesser' games they (SE and Konami) release on the consoles, since those games are not known for pushing the hardware to the limits. Hence FFXIII will be THE big game from SE, the one they will be judged upon, and from the demos seen so far, the 360 and PS3 will be on par for the most part, although it will be interesting to see how many DVDs are used for the 360 version and what, if any, compromises will be made.

    "And maybe MS is unfortunate in not having these superlative devs on their side. But it appears to me as if you are trying to prove that the 360 is capable of matching ANYTHING the PS3 can do."

    Er no, that's not my point at all, my point is (as you'll recall from frequent repetition ;)) that both consoles are of similar power with the PS3 having a slight edge overall, and hence the superb results seen in Uncharted, KZ2 and MGS4 are not proof of significant PS3 superiority, but proof that the right hardware IN THE RIGHT HANDS can produce superb results. Hence to repeat the other point I frequently make, place the 360 hardware in the hands of devs like Naughty Dog, Guerilla and the MGS Konami team, and they could produce equally impressive results on the 360 as they have on the PS3.

    So after E3, and that podcast from Konami, I watch with interest to what they can do on the 360.

    "how about using our Eurogamer messaging/mail to continue our discussion"

    Perhaps in future my friend, but I do feel our discussion here is nearing it's end now. Besides, I do prefer using the comments section and forums for the main 'argument' because there's a public record of the discussion. But I'm happy to engage in PM discussions when appropriate.

  • man.the.king #171 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    "The FF series is to SE what MGS is to Konami, so these are the games we have to look at, not the 'lesser' games they (SE and Konami) release on the consoles, since those games are not known for pushing the hardware to the limits"

    I disagree. It's as if you are saying the other titles get short shrift just because 'they are not FF'. No offense but I think you are considering irrelevant any points which do not help your argument. I don't think the few 360 exclusive titles released by SE were done "as much on the cheap" as you think.

    "the right hardware IN THE RIGHT HANDS can produce superb results"

    Well, SE and Konami are working on two high-profile titles, so when they come out, I guess we will see and the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding :) . I guess for Konami we have an existing benchmark with MGS4, so we could use that for comparison as well.

    "there's a public record of the discussion"

    As you wish. My suggestion was due to the fact that we kept coming back to this thread which appears to have been deserted by now by most save for the two of us.

    "Disclaimer: Friday night"

    No matter mate. I lived/worked in the UK for 2+ years (London suburbs, BUPA at Ashford and Close Premium Finance at Surbiton) and I did appreciate my Fridays there, with pub visits starting from noon :) . Unfortunately, here in the US, we don't see much of that until late Friday.

    Have a nice weekend.
    Edited by 1 at 04/07/09 @ 03:24

  • Yaz #172 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    Sorry about the delay (grabbing the opportunity to reply from work, i.e. "when the cats away, the mice ...";)


    "I disagree. It's as if you are saying the other titles get short shrift just because 'they are not FF'. No offense but I think you are considering irrelevant any points which do not help your argument."

    Not at all. Can you name the 360 exclusive from Square/Enix that compares to Final fantasy in terms of production values, technical achievement, budget and time? I know I can't.

    I am not suggesting the "other titles get short shrift", but it's always been the case that the BIGGEST IPs are the most important IPs for developers and therefore usually gets the most resources directed towards them, as you would expect. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, are you really suggesting that the forthcoming FFXIII game for both 360 and PS3 has not had more time and money invested in it than those 360 exclusives from SE? Because that seems to be what you're saying.

    The same applies to Konami with the MGS series, Bungie with the Halo series, and will be the same for Guerilla with the Kiilzone series on the PS, even if they create new IPs in the near future. Now if any of the new IPs are a massive success, then that IP will enjoy increased resources for the sequel.

    Hence I do believe in taking all the factors into consideration, not just a select few, and therefore I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of it, or looking to make excuses, instead I'm considering all the factors which are important to the issue at hand (and yet are often overlooked).

    That's why I made the point about talent before, because over many generations of 'console wars' I've seen the same thing happen many times amongst gamers, where a graphically fabulous game arrives on console X and is then used by gamers to 'prove' that console X is superior to console Y, ignoring the part the developer had to play. Very few ever seem give credit to the developer for their incredible achievement, choosing instead to believe it's all down to the (cue deep voice) ...Awesome...Power...Of...The...Console... ;)

    You also said "Well, SE and Konami are working on two high-profile titles, so when they come out, I guess we will see and the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding :) . I guess for Konami we have an existing benchmark with MGS4, so we could use that for comparison as well."

    And for once, I'm in full agreement with you. :)

    Those games from SE and Konami will be a good test in future, since we can be sure they'll do all they can to push the hardware of both consoles to the max.

    "As you wish. My suggestion was due to the fact that we kept coming back to this thread which appears to have been deserted by now by most save for the two of us."

    It's just that when/if looking back on this topic in future, our full discussion will be here, rather than split between here and private messages.

    "I lived/worked in the UK for 2+ years"

    Excellent, I hope you enjoyed your time in the UK, or at the very least, your time was productive.

    Ok, that's all from me in this topic, I'll leave you with the last word (but I expect we'll be returning to this topic a number of times in the future :)).

    Edited by 1 at 08/07/09 @ 17:07

  • man.the.king #173 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    "when the cats away, the mice ..."

    Unless you are working from home, that is ;) . BTW, do you work in IT or something else?

    "it's always been the case that the BIGGEST IPs are the most important IPs for developers and therefore usually gets the most resources directed towards them, as you would expect. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, are you really suggesting that the forthcoming FFXIII game for both 360 and PS3 has not had more time and money invested in it than those 360 exclusives from SE? Because that seems to be what you're saying."

    What I am saying is that yes, SE possibly may have more resources (both manpower and money) devoted to FF than to their other franchises, but not by a huge margin as you seem to be indicating. If that were indeed the case, then most one-off games or start-of-franchises would feature sub-par technical performance.

    "It's just that when/if looking back on this topic in future, our full discussion will be here, rather than split between here and private messages."

    Okay, that seems reasonable.

    "I hope you enjoyed your time in the UK, or at the very least, your time was productive"

    I did, and it was :) I still have friends there. Originally I am from India, but have since moved to the US.

    "I expect we'll be returning to this topic a number of times in the future"

    I expect so too, but for now, bye...

  • Yaz #174 3 years ago

    @man.the.king

    Ok, just one more reply since you asked the question... "BTW, do you work in IT or something else?"

    Yes, I started out as a programmer (statistical research applications in Fortran 77, Pascal and C) during the mid-late 80s, moved on to hardware, network management and currently today, computing support, tomorrow, who knows :)

    I believe you're a software engineer?

    "If that were indeed the case, then most one-off games or start-of-franchises would feature sub-par technical performance"

    It's all relative. Most one-off games or start-off-franchises from the type of devs we've spoken of here feature excellent technical performance. However, to create a game which surpasses the norm, i.e. features technical performance considered to be amongst the best (if not THE best) seen so far, requires more than 'just' excellence technical performance, and that extra performance comes from the extra manpower and money enjoyed by the key IPs.

    I agree the way I worded it may have implied that there's a huge difference, but that's not what I meant, since I have no figures to compare. But what I do think we agree on is that a difference exists in this respect, and therefore it's that difference (big or small) which is enough to propel such games to the top of the technical pile.

    Definitely my last words this time, so thanks for making this an interesting (as always) and enjoyable discussion.

    Bye
    Edited by 1 at 08/07/09 @ 21:42

  • man.the.king #175 3 years ago

    @Yaz

    I was about to close this chapter when I noticed you had asked a question as well, so here goes:

    "I believe you're a software engineer? "

    Yep. I majored in Electronics (Masters in 1998), but then moved on to Oracle software development (got interested in software after a C-based image-processing project). After I moved to the US, I have been working on Oracle ERP customization (design and development), although along the years I've picked up some extra skills as well.

    "today, computing support, tomorrow, who knows :) "

    Given the current economic climate, who knows, indeed :)

    Anyway, Bye for now and see you on another thread :)