Yaz Comments

Page 1 of 14

  • Microsoft restores game ownership and expects us to smile

  • Yaz 20/06/2013

    @oleros - Thank you. Well said :) Reply 0
  • Source: Xbox new disc format gains 1GB

  • Yaz 04/04/2011

    NeoTechni wrote "On average, PS3's bluray drive is faster by a bit more than a megabyte per second than 360s once you take that into account

    Someone compared official specs from a 360 drive manufacturer years ago and proved it, if you google it I'm sure you can find it"



    Sorry but I just have to say that's completely wrong. What we had years ago were clueless individuals (and fanboys) looking up the specs for 12x DVD drives and making assumptions of the 360's performance based upon those figures. They (correctly) stated that DVD drives reads dual layer disks slower than single layer disks and therefore claimed that 360 games were reading the dual layer game disks at 8x.



    Why is that wrong? Well because the spec of the 360's DVD drives are "12x dual layer", not 12x as specified on the PC. Hence they are actually 16x drives when used for single layer disks. Look on ebay or search online for the DVD drives used in the 360 (for replacement), and you'll find they are ALL rated as 16x (hence 16x single layer, 12x dual layer). Since all 360 games are released on dual layer, the official spec has always specified 12x dual layer (google 360 specs), and therefore the 360's DVD drive is faster than the 2x Blu-ray drive in the PS3.



    Not that it really matters, but, facts are facts. :-)
    Reply +5
  • What HVS wants from the Nintendo Wii 2

  • Yaz 15/03/2011

    The problem for any successor to the Wii is that Microsoft and Sony have now entered the space Nintendo created for themselves and dominated, i.e. motion controlled gaming, where MS have gone one step further than the Wii by eliminating the controller and Sony have refined the motion sensing wand. It's too late for a Wii-HD, so where do Nintendo go from here?



    I believe Nintendo are going to want to carve out yet another niche for themselves, again to disrupt the console business, and one way might be a gaming tablet, like an iPad but dedicated to gaming and with a twist or something new to seperate it from the tablets already on the market (maybe a way to read movement several inches above the screen?). Price will be an issue though, so we'll see what happens :-)



    Does anyone else have ideas on what Nintendo may do next?
    Reply 0
  • Making PS3 profitable is Sony's priority

  • Yaz 22/02/2011

    Not that I'm nit-picking...or perhaps I am... but why do I keep seeing the sales figures of 47.9m and 50m for PS3 and 360? The like for like figures released by Sony and Microsoft were 47.9m and 50.8m, where both shipped 6.3m consoles last quarter.



    For PS3 to overtake 360 this year, it has to not only start shipping/selling more worldwide, but it has to sell an average of about 240000-250000 more PS3s per month compared to the 360 to bridge that 2.9/3m gap. Hence there's no way I can see PS3 overtaking the 360 this year.

    Or am I missing something? :)
    Reply +3
  • MS: No plans to release Milo & Kate

  • Yaz 29/06/2010

    Seems to be some confusion over this, apparently Molyneux will be showing it next month.



    http://www.vg247.com/2010/06/29/molyneux...


    I think the confusion may be that there are no plans to release Milo and Kate as a game, but that they actually feature as a small part of a much larger game, perhaps something closer to being an adventure game or a detective story, thriller/mystery.



    I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
    Reply 0
  • PrimeSense: Beyond Natal

  • Yaz 05/04/2010

    @Murton who wrote "Depends on what the Natal equivalent of the pause button is"



    For Natal only games, perhaps the hand could be raised up in the traditional stop hand gesture to pause the game (just one idea, perhaps you can think of others?), and for games that use both Natal and the 360 controller, that issue is moot.



    http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff177...


    "but the player is still going to instinctively move their head in the direction of the distraction before pausing the game, potentially adding unintended commands that are unfavourable in the gaming situation"



    As for the head tracking problems, why do you believe so many Natal games will be tracking the head's direction as game input? None of the demos shown so far do so, and whilst there will be games using head tracking, I don't see it being any more of a problem than say head tracking in GT5.



    "but to find out we'll have to wait until E3 when we finally get to see it rather than just hearing about it."



    Agreed. I think it's all too easy to get caught up looking for problems that aren't actually there, or focusing on issues which devs have already found solutions to. Hence let's wait and see. :-)
    Reply +2
  • Yaz 05/04/2010

    @Murton - Some interesting points, and you're correct that everyone has a right to be sceptical until Natal is finally showcased at E3, however I do feel you over state the problems with distractions.



    You said "Things always distract us in gaming, people calling our name, ringing phones, a knock on the door, whatever your personal bane is, all of these things will cause a range of instinctive movements that will be interpreted as input. It's a minor issue but one that can't really be avoided and therefore will prove extremely annoying."



    Yes, things always distract us in gaming, however for anything which is so distracting as to requiring our immediate attention and therefore taking us away from the game, we would usually *pause* the game. Hence I don't see why games using Natal would be any different, and therefore I don't believe such distractions will be any more annoying for Natal based games than for those based around motion sensing wands.



    @ThePissartist who wrote "The truth of the matter is; Move is more of an upgraded Eyetoy."



    Actually, Murton is correct here, Natal is essentially an upgraded EyeToy, whilst PSMove is an upgraded Wiimote (with Motion Plus). For Natal, it takes the webcam idea as used by the EyeToy, and adds to it an IR camera to measure distance, and hence provides 3D camera based motion detection. The Wiimote has a camera at the end of the wand which detects the LEDs in the sensor bar to know where it's pointing and it's distance, together with sensors in the wand for movement. PSMove switches the positions of the camera and lights, where it uses the PSEye to detect the lights at the end of the wand together with sensors in the wand for movement.



    Anyway, let's just wait until E3, where both Sony and Microsoft will be going all out to show off their new controllers. :-)
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 03/04/2010

    @jag10 who wrote "...it's running on playstation 2."



    There's a lot of misinformation to be found on the internet, and the link you provided is one of them.



    Yes what you've shown was running on the PS2, but except for the final clip (which wasn't an example of face recognition), the 3D clips were all from the Z camera (or ZCam) from 3DV connected to a PS2, NOT the EyeToy.



    Hence please watch and listen to the following video, which features those same clips, because they came from a demonstration given by EyeToy's creator Richard Marks in 2004 where he showed how a 3D camera (Z camera) offers greater possibilities;



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsHPOoiQ4-8
    Reply +1
  • Digital Foundry vs. PlayStation Move

  • Yaz 13/03/2010

    To amend your list SHARX, the Wiimote does detect distance, i.e. movement in the Z axis (it's a myth that it doesn't).



    For PSMove, the PSEye measures distance by the size of the spheres on the wand. For the Wiimote, it measures distance by the LEDs in the sensor bar. In fact, you can hear an explaination of this and see this being put into effect in the following link;



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw



    For Natal, there's the InfraRed camera which produces a 3D 'map' of the objects in front of it in realtime, which is what separates it from PSEye/EyeToy/XBL Vison and other webcams. That's the main feature that makes Natal different.
    Reply +9
  • Face-Off: Final Fantasy XIII

  • Yaz 05/03/2010

    @man.the.king and @SHARXTREME



    Since I've discussed FFXIII with you both before (in the past and recently) I therefore feel it's only right to say I was wrong on my assumption that (except for video) the 360 port would be up to the PS3 version, I did expect more from SE in this respect (despite it being a relatively quick port), hence it's disappointing to find the 360's resolution is only 576p as previously stated.



    Not that the 360 version is bad of course, it's still excellent, therefore 360 only gamers should be happy with the game, but it's still inferior just the same.



    One thing is clear however, back when SE annonced they were going to make both versions the same, many gamers (and especially the fanboys) went on and on claiming the 360 and MS are causing the PS3 version to be downgraded, whilst other gamers were of the opinion that if any version would be compromised in some way, it will be the 360 version, not the PS3 version. Seems the later were right!



    @Diomedes who wrote "And now to debunk this stupid "FFXIII has 32Gb of FMVs" crap... "



    Except you haven't debunked it. The PS3 version *does* have 32GB of video (you can see the separate movie files on the Blu-ray disk), the remaining 6.8GB is the game data, which consists of game code, graphics AND sound. This was shown by those who analysed the JP version upon release, and DF simply confirmed it.
    Reply +1
  • FFXIII uses much less space on 360

  • Yaz 01/03/2010

    @jin_a0001 who wrote "Is the reason for FFXIII's linear nature to accomodate the three disk setup on the 360?"



    I believe the answer is no.



    What many assume is that because FFXIII was initially announced as a PS3 exclusive, then the game was developed for the PS3.



    The fact is, FFXIII was initally developed for the PS2, and was moved to the PS3 late in it's development (putting the game back by 18 months according to SE).



    http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/6532....



    Hence it would have been a multidisk game from the start, and therefore the games's structure was not changed because of the 360. You could also argue that it's because it was originally a multidisk PS2 game that a multidisk 360 version was never going to be a problem for SE.



    Another assumption some make is to say that the game was cut down because of the 360, but I think it's reasonable to say that with only about 6.8GB of game data and a huge 32GB+ of video cutscenes (and I'm guessing it's about 12GB of cutscenes in the 360 version), the argument that space couldn't be made available for more game data is a little weak.
    Reply +4
  • God of War III needs no HDD install

  • Yaz 25/02/2010

    ^^^ Thanks mtk :) Reply 0
  • Yaz 25/02/2010

    ^^^ It's hasn't been officially proven to be 576p SHARX (screenshots are not enough), so as far as I'm aware, it's 720p. If it happens to be 576p, then so be it, you could then crow to your heart's content.



    As for install and other details about FFXIII on the 360, again we have to wait and see, so it's a little early to act smug about unconfirmed details don't you think. :-) From what I've read, the 18.5GB install is for those who WANT to install the game onto the HDD, it's not a *requirement* for the game. But hey, why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good ol' bash. ;-)



    6.8GB per DVD, yes I know. Moving on.
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 24/02/2010

    Sure SHARX, just as much as you didn't need it. ;-) Reply 0
  • Yaz 24/02/2010

    @trebell who wrote "Off topic, but as it got dragged into this thread, has anyone seen this comment?..."



    Thanks for that trebell.
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 23/02/2010

    @Beano who wrote "I thought the FFXIII 360 videos runs in 720p using Bink Video... not standard PAL DVD resolution (576p) ?"



    Thanks, you could be right Beano, I did read the Bink video format was being used for the 360 version, but I hadn't read what the resolution was (has it been specified somewhere?). But if you are correct, then it immediately questions the 576p claims, since those screenshots of the cinematics would be of a lower resolution compared to the actual game.
    Reply +1
  • Yaz 23/02/2010

    @trebell who wrote "As for the 576p.. that'll be nothing to do with capacity"



    Correct. It's also interesting that the so-called confirmation of the 360 version of FFXIII being 576p seems to come mostly from screenshots of the cinematics, which we already know will be DVD quality rather than Blu-ray quality. And even if we had ingame screenshots at 576p, it's not necessarily the res of the actual game.



    Besides, isn't 576p one of the standard resolutions for DVD? Coincidence? I doubt it. :-)



    My guess, upon release it will be confirmed that the ingame graphics are more or less the same and with a resolution of 720p (sorry Sharkx ;-)), but with the cinematics on the 360 version being 576p. We'll see.



    And wrote "It's nice to enjoy both consoles and be able to enjoy the best of both but also have a fair view of them too."



    Agreed 100%.
    Reply +1
  • There's much more to Milo, says Molyneux

  • Yaz 25/02/2010

    @FireMonkey who wrote "I bet something like Heavy Rain would be f**king awesome with this level of interaction"



    Agreed, I was thinking the same thing.
    Reply +1
  • Natal "not quite there yet" - J. Ross

  • Yaz 23/02/2010

    "@Yaz : The reason I wrote "common sense" is that the more processing the 360 had to do, the more camera data that to be transferred via USB to the 360 for calculation. If the unit was doing the processing itself, only the resulting data would be sent to the console."



    I understand where you're coming from, but it's not relevent in this case. Lag is not so much related to the amount of information being transferred, but the time it takes to process that information.



    For Arc, video is also transferred to the PS3 for processing, where the horizontal, vertical and distance of Arc is processed by the PS3's CPU, not an onboard CPU (the Arc also feeds back info from the motion sensors and buttons).



    For Arc, the time for processing the video is much less than Natal because all it has to do is locate the illuminated sphere in the video image, where the size of the sphere gives the distance. Very simple, very fast, hence resulting in a 1 to 1 response. In contrast, Natal takes that same data (plus depth info) and has to work out the positions of the people in the video, which of course is far more complicated, far more time consuming, and hence the lag.



    "And since the Natal processing (15-30%) has to compete with other normal game processing tasks"



    I haven't read the processing requirements as being quite that high (I'm sure it's 10-15% of system resources, i.e. CPU+memory), but just the same, any game designed with Natal in mind will take the processing requirements into account. Hence it's not as if devs will be taken by surprise, I'm sure we can trust them to know how to manage the requirements of an input device. ;-)



    And wrote "but I would assume that they whould have eliminated the lag by now since it's absolutely critical"



    But it's not going to be eliminated completely, even with an onboard CPU, it can only be reduced.



    Besides, the lag is going to be more where there's more to be processed. Hence for a full body scan as required in that break-out demo, lag is noticeable. But compare that demo to the burnout demo, where only the hands and feet were of interest, and the lag was negligible according to the reports I've read.



    So it will vary depending on use, although I'm interested in the relationship between the number of players and lag (it should increase, but by how much?).



    And said "Anyway, let's see how good/bad it is at E3 2010 before completely dismissing it :)"



    Agreed, let's wait and see. :)
    Reply +2
  • Yaz 23/02/2010

    @Beano who wrote "The lag is a clear sign that removing the CPU from the device, has damaged Natal's chances as a serious and fast input device......" ... "What about common sense?"



    ???



    It's got nothing to do with common sense, lag has been seen with Natal since it was first shown at E3 last year. It hasn't increased since then, if anything, the lag seems to have decreased.



    Hence Frandroid is correct, lag is related to the time it takes for the video to be processed, and therefore if the 360's CPU is able to process the video faster than an onboard CPU, then the lag would be reduced by the removal of the CPU, not increased!



    Of course, a dedicated onboard CPU has the potential to outperform the 360's CPU, but given the power restrictions and cost, perhaps it just wasn't practical with today's technology.



    That said, I was disappointed about the removal of the CPU, resulting in Natal requiring up to 10% of the 360's resources, but I still believe there's huge potential in Natal. :)
    Reply +4
  • Tech Analysis: Final Fantasy XIII

  • Yaz 06/02/2010

    @anonim1979 and @Darren (who wrote) "If the game is 32 GB on the PS3 then it is using a dual-layer BD which means 50 GB of space ... So, yes, that guy is clearly telling porkies"



    Actually, the article here says it's 32.6GB for the pre-rendered movies alone, the game itself is 6.8GB, making a total of 39.4GB. This leaves just 7.2GB of space free on the disc (out of 46.6GB, not 50GB), and given that uncompressed audio is being used, then I think it's more than likely that he is telling the truth, there isn't enough room for english subtitles and uncompressed audio.



    Regarding the game's structure, it started out as a PS2 game, where they said the transition from PS2 to PS3 put the game back 18 months;



    http://www.vg247.com/2010/01/31/kitase-f...


    Hence FFXIII was not designed for the PS3 from the start, it was designed for the PS2 and therefore designed for multiple discs from the beginning, making the game's structure ideal for the 360, despite the PS3 version being on a single Blu-ray disc.



    Still, as mentioned in that link, Square Enix will give a number of lectures about the development of FFXIII during GDC in March, therefore we should have a clearer idea of the game's development in a few months, where questions over the role the PS2, 360 and PS3 played in the creation of FFXIII will hopefully be answered;



    http://www.vg247.com/2010/01/30/square-e...
    Reply +8
  • FFXIII will get DLC, says Kitase

  • Yaz 28/01/2010

    @Steroyd who said "but I don't recall any game not published by Microsoft themselves to be on multiple discs"



    I believe SE's Star Ocean 4 (The last Hope) was on 3 DVDs for the 360.
    Reply +2
  • Yaz 28/01/2010

    @Murton who wrote "They've already said that content has been cut to keep the game size down, what other reaction do you expect from gamers?"



    You made that claim before, and I answered it (and more) here;



    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/big-la...



    Given that SE also says that FFXIII will take *experienced* gamers 50-60 hours to finish (so perhaps over 100 hours for the average gamer?), I believe they were probably talking about the duration of game, not the physical size of the game on disc (although of course, the two are related).
    Reply 0
  • Big LA Noire reveal coming next month

  • Yaz 26/01/2010

    @man.the.king who said "What I'm saying is that, in an RPG, sometimes it is desirable for a player to move around freely from one area to another."



    And what I'm saying is that neither you nor anyone else knows whether the structure of FFXIII involved this *before* they decided on a 360 version! According to SE shortly after the 360 announcement, the 360 didn't change their plans on the PS3 version.



    Look at MGS4, it's on a 50GB Blu-ray disc, it's a PS3 exclusive, and yet that game is split into numerous acts, requiring an installation for EVERY act. Now if before release MGS4 had been announced for the 360, countless gamers would have claimed these seperate acts are all the result of DVD on the 360, saying they needed to restructure the game to fit on seperate DVDs, and therefore the 360 has changed the game (along with their list of how the 360 has made MGS4 worse than it could have been).



    I really don't think you can deny that had MGS4 come to the 360, many gamers would have assumed the seperate acts were the direct result of supporting DVD, just as many gamers claim the 360 has changed the structure of FFXIII and caused it to be smaller than it would have been.



    And wrote "If you choose to believe that the medium on which the game is meant to be stored does not affect development, you are welcome to believe that."



    That's not the issue here, the issue is whether the design of FFXIII REQUIRED changes to be made on the PS3 version because of DVD on the 360, and I don't believe there is any evidence to support that claim, only speculation.



    And finally said "I choose to believe that the number of factors always affects the equation."



    And I choose to believe that the equation isn't complete when there are numerous variables (i.e. facts) missing.



    How many great but LINEAR exclusive games are there on the PS3? If ANY of those were announced for the 360 before release (pretend it could happen for a moment :-)), then certain gamers would have blamed the linearity of those games on the 360, listing all the ways it could have been less linear had it remained a PS3 exclusive. So again, like FFXIII, such speculation does not make something true, no matter how much you believe the evidence supports it.
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 26/01/2010

    @man.the.king who wrote "I can't say for sure, but if the situation were reversed and rumor would say FFXIII had been changed because of some limitation on the PS3, I'm not too sure you would be as eager to dispel that rumor :)"



    To be serious for a moment, yes, I would. I wouldn't accept it as *fact* unless it's proven to be fact, and that usually requires word from the devs on such matters. Of course, I would state my opinion one way or another if there's no proof, but I wouldn't claim my opinion was fact.



    The same with FFXIII being trimmed down. My issue here is that the JP version reveals this game to be 38GB (the 360 version will have more compression). That's 38GB out of the 46.5GB available on the Blu-ray disc (50GB is base 10). This leaves just 8.5GB free on the PS3's Blu-ray disc. So if it's true that about half the game has been trimmed out, then all of that is certainly not going to fit in just 8GB of space, hence something was going to be trimmed out anyway.



    Unless of course the game was going to be released on two 50GB discs, which we've never been led to believed will happen (and was an unlikely goal when developement started), and neither was it likely that their aim was for a game which would take experienced gamers over 100-120 hours to complete (SE says FFXIII will take 50-60 hours for experienced gamers).



    So, imo of course, FFXIII was always going to be trimmed down in some way (for the reasons SE have given), but how much of that can be attributed to the 360 is open to speculation, but I really don't believe we can just point the finger at the 360 and say "it's all your fault 360, it all because of DVD!!!".



    Goodnight.
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 26/01/2010

    @man.the.king who says "you would see that I didn't state "FFXIII was trim down due to DVD on the 360" as fact either""



    Correct you didn't *say* it, but since you singled me out for challenging Murton over that matter with a sarcastic reply, you did appear to be agreeing with him, even if that was not your intension.



    And said "Not all speculation is baseless, however. People will apply their own preferences and interpretations over all things, just as you do"



    Correct, which is why I always attempt to seperate speculation and opinion from fact (as seen in my first post here) :-)
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 25/01/2010

    @man.the.king who wrote "Also, since there is no evidence to the contrary as well, don't go stating that FFXIII WASN'T trimmed down due to DVD as a fact. Interpretation can run both ways."



    Er-hem, if you actually read my first post *properly*, you would see that I didn't state "FFXIII WASN'T trimmed down due to DVD" as a fact.



    I said and I quote "there's NO EVIDENCE FFXIII was trimmed down due to the 360", which IS a fact, since there is no evidence to support this claim, only speculation. Big difference don't you think? ;-)
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 25/01/2010

    @longyan



    ???
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 24/01/2010

    @man.the.king who wrote "And exactly what sort of evidence would you be expecting? SE issuing a press release to that effect?"



    No, I expect if a claim is going to be made, then there's some evidence to support that claim. Surely that's reasonable? Overwise we can ALL claim anything we like regardless of the facts.



    Hence if you or others want to claim that, in your opinion, FFXIII was trim down due to DVD on the 360, then fine that's YOUR opinion, but don't go stating it as fact.
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 22/01/2010

    @Murton who wrote "It's pretty well documented that MS charges publishers a fortune for multi-disc games"



    And it's well documented that there are a number of 360 games on 3 DVDs (Blue Dragon, Star Ocean 4). So it's not that MS charges a fortune, it's that iD simply did not want to pay that amount (whatever it is) for a 3 DVD game.



    And wrote "Id Software said last year that game world in RAGE was going to be half the size as was originally planned to get it down to two discs instead of four"



    No, the problem was maintaining the QUALITY not the size. iD originally wanted 3 discs to match the quality of the PS3 version, however with 2 discs, some of the texture detail will be less in certain areas;



    http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/08/carmac...


    "They'll get the high quality compression. But if you go into some areas in the wasteland, like behind a fence where nobody will typically go and explore, this is where the 360 version may look a little blurry compared to the PS3."



    Nothing about RAGE being half the size originally planned.
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 22/01/2010

    @Murton



    Except there's no evidence FFXIII was trimmed down due to the 360. That's just gamers putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 (as usual ;)).



    Still, I do look forward to La Noire finally being revealed next month.
    Reply +5
  • Microsoft's Phil Spencer

  • Yaz 20/01/2010

    @monkeywithnoeyes who said "MS need to start promoting the possibilitys of Natal alongside the controller... if we wanted wii games we'd of invested in a wii."



    That's what I'd been hoping for since the announcement, but since the news that the image processing chip has been removed from the camera, and that Natal requires 10-15% of the console's resources as a result of losing that chip, it's suitability for 'hardcore' genres has been reduced. Which is disappointing for me, therefore I guess we'll have to wait for Natal2 (with the next Xbox I expect).



    Therefore, like the Arc (despite what some may believe), I think Natal is going to be more suited and therefore more targetted towards casual gaming, with perhaps some limited support in a handful of hardcore games.
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 20/01/2010

    @Moonprince who said"That's simply the app applied, could do the same on eyetoy"



    Really? How would software alone enable EyeToy to work in the dark? How would software allow EyeToy to work out the distance of each point on the body?



    If you could do the same on Eyetoy, then it would have ALL been done on EyeToy years ago.



    Yes Natal is effectively an upgraded EyeToy, just as Arc is an upgraded Wiimote, but the keyword here is 'upgraded'.
    Reply +6
  • MS: Natal will work with "all ethnicities"

  • Yaz 01/01/2010

    Not sure why you're bumping this old topic Mercatoria. HP's webcam problem is a genuine issue caused by the way the software recognises a face, where it identifies facial features like the eyebrows by the tonal difference between it and the skin, therefore they can correct the problem by optimizing the software.



    N'Gai Croal's problem with Natal has nothing to do with his skin colour (as proven by the many black celebrities who tried out Natal at E3), hence that report was just internet mischief, where people put 2 and 2 together to make 5.



    Hence Croal's problem was certainly due to something else, for example, some people had problems steering because they crossed their arms over when driving, and at that time, the Natal prototype got confused whenever people did that. The same with feet, hence the Avatar problem during the conference..."You ever wonder what the bottom of an avatar's shoe looks like? Well BAM! There it is" :)
    Reply 0
  • Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off: Round 23

  • Yaz 03/12/2009

    "Yes I am fueling the conspiracy fire. lol"



    :)
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 03/12/2009

    @Trejser



    "This is "Xbox 360 vs. PS3 Face-Off" not "Face-Off""



    Ok, fair enough, there's a case for Dragon Age to be split off from this face off and put into a seperate article.



    I would put it's inclusion here to be nothing more than an oversight/error on Richard's part, rather than the claim that it was done to belittle the PS3 version.



    Agreed?
    Reply -2
  • Yaz 03/12/2009

    @semitope who wrote: "The "first faceoff" is the first time they compare the 2 versions. They come back later with a second faceoff when they want to compare the PC version so it is the first to include the PC in the FIRST faceoff between 2 game versions."



    Not quite, all the following have had face-offs between PC, PS3 and 360 first, no prior face-off between just the PS3 and 360;



    Fallout 3,

    Call of Duty: World at War,

    Far Cry 2,

    Fear 2,

    The Chronicles of Riddick,

    Batman: Arkham Asylum.



    http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?pla...


    So Dragon Age is certainly not the first game, far from it. The only 'strange' thing is that it was included within Face-off 23 (so it's perhaps the first within the main 'Face-off:Round X' series), but would it really have made a difference if two face-off articles were posted on the same day, where the Dragon Age face-off was seperated from Face-off 23?
    Reply +1
  • Face-Off: Assassin's Creed II

  • Yaz 22/11/2009

    @Semitope & Calgon.



    I'm not sure of the exact exchanges you had previously regarding SPU use within Uncharted, however I feel the best info comes from devs during game conferences. Hence the following presentation from Naughty Dog at last years GDC should make interesting reading.



    The Technology of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune;



    http://www.naughtydog.com/docs/Naughty-D...
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 21/11/2009

    @semitope who wrote: "Because I would be adding to the garbage, that is why and I am not particularly proud of having gone into that with them."



    Ok, then, let's leave it at that. :)



    "The ps3 system doesn't use quite that much anymore. Last most likely figure I read was on Beyond3D and they said around ~43mb but the last theory I read there was ~24mb. Its all on this thread:"



    Actually, they're only speculating on the absolute minimum the OS could use since Sony don't provide that info anymore. On the PS3, as you start adding features necessary for the game, the memory usage goes up on the PS3 (as you can see listed in that thread), whereas on the 360, it's 32MB for all the OS's needs.



    It's interesting that with every update before 1.80, the reduction in size of the PS3's memory footprint was made publically available, and yet since that 72MB figure in 2007, no announcements of reductions in the OS's memory requirements have been made. Hence I think it's safe to assume that whilst the OS's use of memory on the PS3 has been updated since, it's still much more than the 360's 32MB for your average game.



    That said, if you do happen to come across some up-to-date (and official) figures on the PS3's OS memory usage, I'd be grateful for such information (thanks in advance!). :)
    Reply +3
  • Yaz 21/11/2009

    @semitope who wrote "I did it because they pushed the comments section to system wars, uncharted 2 and even went on to mention halo and l4d".



    But that still doesn't really explain the need to delete your posts. I've been in such discussions myself many times before semitope, and when I've felt things have gone too far, I just say so, I don't delete my previous posts if I know my comments are correct. Hence I'm sure you can understand my suspicion over your motives.



    You said "Also you are taking it like they did..."



    But how am I suppose to 'take it' when I couldn't read your posts? I responded to your post regarding Naughty Dog earlier, and the next time I looked at this topic, your reply to me and other posts were deleted, BEFORE I had a chance to read them.



    "1) The one from loghorn about memory limitation (my answer was that if it were so blatantly true, multiplats would be worlds better on the 360. Agreed? The difference would be 256MB vs 512 crudely)."



    Well, I do agree with Loghorn when he says the PS3 is only slightly more powerful than the 360 (as I've been saying that since E3 2005), although I'm not really sure what he meant by "RAM bottlenecking". If it's about bandwidth, then yes that's not really such an issue (or at least, not as much as some make out), however if it's about available memory, then that is an issue for the PS3 when running multiformat games unfortunately.



    Both consoles (excluding the GPUs) have 512MB, partitioned differently, and for games, the PS3's operation system still takes up more RAM than the 360's, where at the last count it was 72MB vs 32MB (look up PS3 memory footprint on google). 72MB is a great improvement compared to when the PS3 was launched, but it still leaves the PS3 with at least 40MB less RAM for gameplay compared to the 360 (about 10% less). Hence in certain multiformat games, details are missing from the PS3 version that are present in the 360 version due to RAM. For exclusives it's not an issue because devs will work around any limitations and build a game to the strengths of that format.



    "2) Another person brought up the lighting difference..."



    From what I'm seeing, in terms of lighting, there's no real noticeable difference between the day time shots, however for night scenes, whilst they have the same number of lights each, the method of lighting used on the 360 version decays much quicker than the method used on the PS3, meaning the PS3's lights visibly illuminates a wider area, and so imo, gives the night scenes in the PS3 version an aesthetically more pleasing appearence.



    "Now tell me that deserves the retarded replies."



    Well, I think I'll wait to see your reply to my post first (since as I didn't get to see the other earlier ;)).
    Reply +1
  • Yaz 21/11/2009

    @semitope who wrote "I have deleted any posts that reply to the 360 fanboys on here. None of you idiots are worth it".



    That says it all really. You seem to have decided that anyone who doesn't agree with you MUST be a fanboy (hmmm, pot calling the kettle black I believe), and you deleted those posts because you realised your arguments didn't hold up to scrutiny (I assume you replied to me too, but I didn't get to read it).



    If you were confident you were right, then you would have had no reason to delete your own posts, therefore it has nothing to do with 360 fanboys, you simply didn't want others to see your claims being taken apart (at least, that's what it looks like to me, sorry).
    Reply +4
  • Yaz 20/11/2009

    @semitope



    I have to say I agree with Calgon here with regards to Sony exclusive devs claiming games can only be done on Sony's console, especially since I've had a similar discussion with (*looks left*, *looks right*, ok he's not here yet :)), man.the.king.



    So have you read this more recent interview with Naughty Dog?



    http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/16/uncharte...


    Take note of these two very direct questions;



    "Q. You’ve mentioned that the Xbox 360 could never handle Uncharted 2. Do you think we’ve hit the point where the PS3 will start pulling ahead of the Xbox 360 in terms of graphical fidelity and overall performance? Do you think there will be a noticeable difference in the two platforms’ games from here on out?"



    Now, given what they said before, and given what gamers like yourself choose to believe, shouldn't the answer to those two questions be "Yes" and "Yes"?



    Well apparently no, since this is the reply he gives instead;



    "Evan Wells: I THINK THE DIFFERENCES THAT YOU SEE BETWEEN ANY TWO GAMES HAS *MUCH MORE TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPER* THAN WHETHER IT'S ON THE XBOX OR PS3. GREAT PROGRAMMERS AND GREAT ARTISTS ARE GOING TO MAKE A GREAT GAME. Naughty Dog will continue to push the PlayStation hardware as far as we can. We’re fortunate that we get to work on a system that has a hard drive and uses blu-ray for storage. Without these things, Uncharted 2 would have been a very different game. What we were able to do with the Cell processor allowed us to achieve a density of polygons and a fidelity to our effects that would simply not be possible without it. But ultimately, if we didn’t have a team of very talented programmers and artists, we wouldn’t have been able to take advantage of the hardware and achieve the results that we did."



    So, CLEARLY, he demises the idea that Uncharted 2 is as it is because the PS3 is 'way' more powerful than the 360, but instead puts it down to THEIR ability on the hardware. He also states that Blu-ray and having a HDD in each console resulted in the game being as it is (DVDs would have meant multiple disks, hence different in THAT respect), and that Cell enabled them to have nicer effects and more polygons (no doubt because RSX is slightly weaker than the 360's GPU Xenos). NOTHING there which suggests it couldn't be done on the 360, even though the interviewer clearly reminded him about their previous claim, and asked if the PS3 will pull ahead of the 360 in terms of graphics and performance.



    In otherwords, his answer to those question were not "Yes" and "Yes" as you suggest, but actually were more "No" and "No" (but of course, it's not so black and white).



    Interesting. :)
    Reply 0
  • BBC's The Big Questions addresses MW2

  • Yaz 17/11/2009

    Doctor_What wrote: "Well true, but society does seem to have been screwing itself further into the ground since the 1980s. Maybe violent films and games are perhaps something to do with it?"



    Come now :), every generation is convinced that things are getting worse ("the youth of today... why, in my day *chews gums*) and therefore point the finger at the latest scapegoat(s) available, however I really don't think you can make a connection between violent films and games to declines in society (what ever you feel they may be).



    I understand the point you're making regarding blame, however we can't escape the fact that if a film or game is targetted at an adult audience, then they should not be watched/played by those who are under age, and therefore the fault does not lie with the creators, but with the access to their creations.



    Now I'm not going to single out parents, teachers, shop owners, government, the media, etc, and say it's all the fault of one or the other, since I believe it's down to society (i.e. all of us) to get it's act together over such issues and take responsibility, it's not for game developers or film makers to censor their products for an audience they're not targetted towards.



    A good friend of mine is a excellent father of 2, however in conversation with him early this year I discovered that his youngest son (8 or 9 years old) had a laptop in his room, connected to the internet with NO content protection at all, and it didn't even occur to him that it should be protected! Now we all know what can be accessed over the internet, even by accident. So upon hearing this, I got him to download and install a free web protection program (K9 I think it was), which filters out sites featuring porn and other inappropriate material, and so he is now in control of the level of access his son has to the internet, the times he can browse, and he can easily access a history of the sites his son has visited!



    So can I blame my friend for not realizing such software exists to protect his son? Maybe, maybe not, but there are countless number of kids out there who have unrestricted access to the internet (and worse still, in their own rooms), just as there are kids who play games they shouldn't be playing and watch movies they shouldn't be watching. The problem is how to stop them gaining access to such material, not to stop the material from being created.



    Until responsibility is taken by ALL to address these issues (instead of pointing the finger at others), and until it can be done in a FAIR and objective manner, then kids gaining access to inappropriate games, movies or whatever, will continue to be a problem.



    I wonder what what the *next* scapegoat will be in future? :)
    Reply +1
  • DF: Blu-ray makes no sense for Xbox 360

  • Yaz 04/11/2009

    @Les "It has nothing to do with playing games, there just hasn't ever been a proper counter argument. Which isn't strange as there isn't one... ;)"



    Now that's a matter of opinion. :)



    And you wrote "what part of the 360's success does make the 360 gradually more attractive to developers? And how? :)"



    I was comparing this gen to last gen, not directly comparing the 360 to the PS3. My point was that some of the best dev teams who only supported Sony last gen for their most important IPs (besides the odd XBox port) will be producing at least one game for both Microsoft and Sony this gen, because compared to last gen, the 360 has a greater share of the market (i.e. more attractive). Without that improved market share, there probably would be no FFXIII or MGS Rising for the 360, two games which I expect to support my argument that developer talent, resources, time and budget are greater factors behind the quality of the best looking games than just console power alone.



    That's all it was. Can I go now? :)
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 04/11/2009

    @Les who wrote "They don't make money for the companies that produce them nor will they ever (uptake is way too slow compared to the original investment). How can they possibly be doing fine?!"



    With all due respect Les, that's one of your frequent claims here and it's one which has been argued over by you, me and others MANY times already. So I'm not going to play that game with you today. :)



    "OK, if that's not what you meant to imply, fine. But then it was a bit of a useless remark to make".



    When taken out of context, yes, but if you look back to where I made that comment, it was more than just being about increasing sales making the console more attractive to devs.
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 04/11/2009

    man.the.king, I'll make this my last post to you here, and I'll try to make it as short as I can :)



    @man.the.king who wrote "it appears as if you chose to believe Evan Wells without any inhibitions because he said something which kinda agreed with what you like to believe, while you allowed interpretation to take over for whatever Christophe Balestra said :)"



    Nope, it's never black or white mtk. I'm sure you can find a director/programmer who echoes some of your views, but it doesn't mean you accept everything he says without question!



    As I've mentioned before, I've been doing this for generations of consoles, hence I've followed devs like ND very closely over many years, and Evan speaks in the way ND used to, like Jason Rubin in fact. Here's an interview with Jason last gen, again, take note of what he thinks seperates ND from other devs;



    http://archive.gamespy.com/interviews/ma...


    "Jason Rubin: The big advantage that Naughty Dog has is that Sony backs Naughty Dog with a huge amount of resources that we can spend on programming talent. We have a lot more programmers than most studios can afford; we have better programmers than a lot of studios can afford. It's not a level playing field in video games....."



    So you see, I wasn't saying Evan was right JUST because he happened to agree with the point I made, the fact is, ND and others have been making that point for years!



    In contrast, Christophe speaks like the devs ND used to criticise in the past (including his comments over percentage of system used).



    You said "In my opinion, it is the reluctance of the porting teams to take the time and incorporate the "major changes" (to suit the PS3 architecture)"



    But this has always been the case mtk. Go back last gen, go back further to the Playstation/Saturn/N64 days, go back to the SNES/Mega Drive era and you'll find gamers complaining about bad ports. The nature of a port means dev teams are highly unlikely to rewrite a game to make full use of the format they're porting to, they only want to get the game up and running on a new format with acceptable results, preferably as quickly as possible. Having a unique architecture and/or being difficult to program only adds to the porting problem, it doesn't create it.



    You also said "In my opinion, ND, Insomniac and a few others have accepted the PS3 architecture for what it is rather than what they want it to be".



    Because they can. That's the privilage available to those working *exclusively* on one console (and always has been). ALL their resources are focussed upon ONE format, not spread across multiple formats. Most developers working on multiformat games are not in a position to explore all the idiosyncrasies of the hardware, their goal is to create solutions which work across all the formats they're supporting.



    Finally, you said "Happy to hear that - that statement keeps this a debate and, more importantly, keeps this from devolving into an argument."



    Good to see we've ended this discussion on good terms.



    I'll leave you with the last word here, but I expect we'll be returning to this subject in the future. :)
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 02/11/2009

    (Recovered from the flu)



    @man.the.king who wrote "Correct. I've moved away from that. However, I believe you are just as wrong in imagining that the difference is "negligible".



    I guess that depends on what you and I consider as 'negligible' or 'slightly'. So let's not be pedantic over power any longer and just agree that we both believe the PS3 is more powerful overall, but disagree on the size of that power difference. :)



    "Yes - and since then, 99% of those very same developers are now either multi-platform, and some of them are 360-exclusive. "



    Er no, I'm not talking about ALL devs on the console. This has been about the tiny minority of devs who can get more out of the hardware than others, i.e. the best in that area. Do you consider the efforts of devs like ND and Polyphony to be nothing special and that most other devs are able to achieve equally great results? I would think not. But every time we've discussed this issue, you play down the abilities of devs like Naughty Dog, Konami's MGS team and Polyphony, effectively saying they're no more talented than other devs out there at pushing the hardware, including compared to those on the XBox/360 (and yet you can never list any exclusive XBox/360 dev team who is seen to be in the same league for pushing the hardware to the max).



    "I suppose you will believe that, but you will choose not to believe this: ND 100% sure that U2 can't be done on the 360 (for the record, I believe ND was just posturing when they said "100% sure blah blah blah", just like I believe ND were giving a "safe" answer when they said what you posted above)."



    I don't pick and choose what to believe mtk. I know for a fact that no dev can say with certainly what can or cannot be done on hardware that they've never developed for (and never will). Isn't THAT common sense? And a game designed so specifically for one console, pushing that console to the max, would be very difficult to port to another without major changes. Hence if (in a parallel universe) the 360 was a little more powerful that the PS3, it STILL would have been a problem to have Uncharted 2 running on the 360 *exactly* seen on the PS3! Changes would have to be made, making it worse in some areas and possibly better in others. Likewise, if the 360's architecture was in the hands of ND, their record suggests they would have pushed the hardware more than anyone else, resulting in the best looking 360 game by far, and a game which would be difficult to run on the PS3 without major changes.



    That 100% commment you mentioned came from ND's Christophe Balestra (who, as you said, was posturing), where he puts it down to filling up Blu-ray (ok, so multiple discs needed on the 360 then), having a HDD as standard (ok, so 360's with a HDD get better performance), and the quality of some of their effects, namely Depth of Field (ok, so you'll have a good, but perhaps not as nice DoF effect on the 360 instead, but still possible). So his comment about it being impossible on 360 is pure nonsense, since like ALL games, it can always be done, just with changes.



    As for Evan giving a "safe" answer, that may or may not be so (after all, he's not like Christophe), but it's still an answer that happens to agree with what I've been saying to you all along, and from the dev who arguably has pushed the PS3 more than anyone else. It's the same answer ND have been giving for years regarding why they seem to be able push the hardware more than everyone else.



    "Agreed. I'm more than willing to accept I'm wrong if 360 shows me "the money" :). What are your criteria for accepting you might have been wrong? Or, forgive me for asking, do you have any, or do you believe you cannot possibly be wrong?"



    So you believe I think I'm perfect do you? ;)



    I'm not always right, no-one is, but if I have an opinion based upon the facts available, then I will hold to that opinion until I'm proven wrong with facts and logical arguments.



    In discussions about console power over the years, I've seen too many examples of gamers' opinions changing with the wind, depending on which console currently has the best looking game. In otherwords, great/best looking game = bragging rights. So if tomorrow, a game is revealed for the 360 which blows away anything we've seen so far for the PS3 (yeah I know, very unlikely, but let's say it does happen), I guarantee that until a better looking game appears on the PS3, the internet would be full of gamers saying it proves the 360 is more powerful than the PS3, and that game X proves it.



    Would such a 360 game prove them right? No. Would you agree with them if that happened? No, I don't think you'd be so fickle, although it may adjust your opinion a little. Instead, I would like to think you'd expect results to come from the PS3 later that either matches or betters game X. Hence today, I'm not going to look at a game like Uncharted 2 and ignore or play down the main factors which led to it being such an incredible looking game.



    If in future, it seems that the 360/PS3 power difference is actually greater than I currently believe it to be, then yes, I'd be happy to adjust my views accordingly. :)
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 02/11/2009

    @Les who wrote "Wrong. Like the PS3, the 360 is a big failure...making the 360 gradually less attractive versus the PS3."



    Wrong, both consoles are doing fine. And also I said the success of the 360 this gen made it more attractive TO devs not owned by Sony (as in, compared to last gen), I didn't say it made the 360 MORE attractive to devs COMPARED to the PS3.
    Reply 0
  • Yaz 29/10/2009

    @man.the.king who wrote "Fair enough - you've never said that 360 is more powerful than PS3, although you've certainly implied it (in my opinion) by your innumerable claims that PS3 ports can't match the 360's in terms of technological prowess, even though, by your own admission, porting has "mixed results, as is often the case with ports".



    I think you probably interpret it that way because you came from a background of believing the PS3 was 'much more powerful' than the 360 (which you've shifted away from since then). In our many discussions, I've given reasons why PS3 versions often don't turn out quite as good as the 360 version, and those reasons have not been about power but about the issues we all know about, such as the difficulty coding the PS3 compared to the 360. Whenever we discussed the power of the consoles themselves, we both agreed the PS3 was more powerful overall, but where we disagreed was on the SCALE of that difference (and probably still do, but not as much as before).



    "You are talking as if GeOW2 was itself a multiplatform game. In my opinion, the UE3 works with Windows and 360 architecture better than with PS3's. For example, can you name one PS3 game running on UE3 that runs better or equally as good as on 360?"



    Unreal Tournament 3! That was released for the PC and PS3 first, followed by the 360 version about 6 months later. As expected, the PC version was the best, with the PS3 and 360 equally as good as each other (except the 360 version doesn't have mod support due to XBL restrictions).



    So we can argue all day about how much better (or not) UE3 runs on the 360 compared to the PS3, but it's still not a game engine built from the ground up for the 360, and hence it cannot squeeze as much out of the hardware as a custom built engine *potentially* can on the console.



    "...common sense tells me that all the best developers can't just have decided to stay exclusive to the Sony platform, leaving Microsoft's (just as impressive) platform with lesser talent."



    Sony has built up their 'talent' since the introduction of the Playstation back in Dec 1994, 15 years ago! They dominated that generation selling over 100 million Playstations, and then dominated the next gen with the PS2, selling more than even the Playstation, despite the launch of the GC and XBox in 2001 (the PS2 has sold 140 milliion consoles to date!).



    So for 11 years, to say that Sony dominated the console market is almost an understatement, hence they were a magnet for a lot of the best talent within the industry. Even the fact that the PS2 was extremely difficult to program didn't stop Sony's momentum, instead it resulted in devs like ND hiring the best people they could find to get the most out of the difficult hardware.



    Of course, with Sony owning ND since 2001, they are not going to be creating any 360 games, however the success of the 360 this gen has gradually made it more attractive to the devs not owned by Sony, hence we'll see some of that 'talent' finally producing games for the 360, like FFXIII and MGS Rising, yes not exclusive, but I expect enough to show that great results are possible even for multiformat games.



    Interestingly, Evan Wells from ND recently said what I've been saying to you all along (a shift from their previous comments about Uncharted on the 360);



    http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/16/uncharte...


    "Q. You’ve mentioned that the Xbox 360 could never handle Uncharted 2. Do you think we’ve hit the point where the PS3 will start pulling ahead of the Xbox 360 in terms of graphical fidelity and overall performance? Do you think there will be a noticeable difference in the two platforms’ games from here on out?



    Evan Wells: I THINK THE DIFFERENCES THAT YOU SEE BETWEEN ANY TWO GAMES HAS *MUCH MORE TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPER* THAN WHETHER IT'S ON THE XBOX OR PS3. GREAT PROGRAMMERS AND GREAT ARTISTS ARE GOING TO MAKE A GREAT GAME. Naughty Dog will continue to push the PlayStation hardware as far as we can. We’re fortunate that we get to work on a system that has a hard drive and uses blu-ray for storage. Without these things, Uncharted 2 would have been a very different game. What we were able to do with the Cell processor allowed us to achieve a density of polygons and a fidelity to our effects that would simply not be possible without it. But ultimately, if we didn’t have a team of very talented programmers and artists, we wouldn’t have been able to take advantage of the hardware and achieve the results that we did."



    So, he says the difference is mostly down to the talent of the developers, rather than whether it's the 360 or PS3! An interesting answer given that he was clearly asked if the PS3 will start to move ahead of the 360 in terms of graphics and performance. Hmmm.



    "That's right. You are willing to wait, and until I see something that proves you right, I think I'll stick with my belief. As for what you want to believe, it's your prerogative."



    By all means stick with your belief, and I'll stick with mine. We'll see what the future brings. :)
    Reply +1
  • Yaz 27/10/2009

    [ Dam, I lost the first reply I typed out, so I'm starting again :( ]



    @man.the.king who said about me "that is to say, he believes the 360 can match "everything the PS3 has to offer, and then some" and will wait until proven RIGHT".



    Excuse me? "AND THEN SOME"? Well now, for that to be true, wouldn't the 360 have to be more powerful than the PS3? So care to point out where and when I've ever made such a claim? So please don't make false claims, you know full well I have never said, or even implied, that the 360 was more powerful than the PS3. My argument has always been that the two consoles are VERY similar in terms of power, far closer than gamers like yourself appear to believe, and that whilst the PS3 is slightly more powerful overall, that little extra is not the key factor behind the impressive exclusives we currently see on Sony's console (and that's were we disagree).



    "I don't know. No one? Everyone? How do you know that they don't? Because you haven't seen anything better than GeOW2 on the 360?"



    And that's interesting isn't it? You mention GeOW2. The most impressive looking 360 exclusive. And yet you seem to ignore the fact that it's running on a multi-format game engine. Now correct me if I'm wrong but, ALL the impressive PS3 exclusives you mention are running on game engines built from the ground up for the PS3! I would think that almost everyone would agree that to get the most out of any console, the game engine has to be built from the ground up for that hardware, and in the hands of the right developers, the results can be spectacular. We've seen that happen for the PS3, but we haven't for the 360, since we haven't seen any custom built game engines for the 360 that are better than the multi-format UE3....yet.



    When we do see custom built 360 game engines that are better than UE3 (and I suspect this could be the case for Halo Reach and a few others), then we should really see the 360 shine (hopefully), just as certain devs have managed to do so already on the PS3. Yes I know it's a case of wait and see, but that's the way it is.



    "Everybody is suddenly saying ND has always had that reputation as they pushed the technology for Uncharted and the sequel. Did they say that for Jak and Daxter as well?"



    Suddenly? It is not suddenly because of Uncharted. I've been following console gaming tech closely since the Playstation/Saturn battle, and the PS2 was so difficult to program that it took years for most devs to finally get to grips with it, and even then, it was devs like Konami, Polyphony and yes, ND, who proved what the PS2 could really do.



    You mention Jak and Daxter, well here's an interview with ND from way back, Dec 2001 to be exact;



    http://www.psxextreme.com/feature/45.html



    "Q: Jak and Daxter's visuals are some of the most impressive, diverse and lush on any console right now. How did Naughty Dog manage to develop a graphics engine that features absolutely no pop-up, draw-in, loading times, and manage to retain a perfect frame rate of 60, and feature some very high-resolution textures?



    A: (EW) It certainly wasn't easy! Naughty Dog has the most talented team of programmers in the industry hands down. They worked for years writing and rewriting the Jak and Daxter graphics engine. There are at least ten different specific renderers to create the various background elements, characters and effects. Each of these renderers went through several rewrites and optimizations to squeeze as much power out of PlayStation 2 as possible."



    Sounds VERY familiar doesn't it? And that was 8 years ago! There are MANY interviews and articles like that about ND over the years. So it's not just "suddenly", I'm not saying it just for the sake of arguing, I'm saying it because it's true. I've followed their work for years, I've read many interviews and seen many articles for almost a decade about ND. So to answer your question...YES, they DID say that about Jax and Daxter! :)



    As for Kojima's work on the XBox, actually it was a seperate team at Konami who were responsible for porting MGS2 from the PS2 to the XBox (with mixed results, as is often the case with ports).



    MGS2 was the FIRST game to show what the PS2 could really do (via the realtime demo first shown at E3 2000), at a time when the quality of most of the PS2 releases were rather poor, and this poor quality continued until Apr-Jul 2001 when GT3 A-Spec became the first released game to make the PS2 'shine', followed by MGS2 in November 2001, and Jax and Daxter in December 2001, resulting in the by far the best looking PS2 games by the end of that year (oh wait, isn't that Polyphony, Kojima's MGS2 team and Naughty Dog again? Hmmm).



    [ Ok, I'm done for the moment, I made other points before, but, I'm not going to bother re-typing them again ]
    Reply -1