Has there been any word yet of 360 receiving inferior ports to PS3?

I

icecubedx5

CAGiversary!
I saw a trailer of Assassins Creed and GODDAMN I am sold. I want that game. But its not just that game, so many games are going cross-platform, and I don't mean generic EA games, but true "system" sellers like Assassins Creed, GTA4, Oblivion, FEAR. Which makes it important to choose the system that displays the games the best.

Has there been any word that 360 is receiving inferior versions, no matter how miniscule? I'm a gamer, and I don't have a problem dropping $200 more on a system if X amount of games will have better quality no matter how small or big. The way I see it, over the course of 6 years of a systems life span, $200 really ain't that much.

With PS2 vs Xbox games, it was easy to tell which was graphically superior, or which system showed more slowdown. This generation is a bit tougher, I looked at 360 version of Assassins Creed and it looked the same as PS3. Any word from developers?
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']The PS3 needs some good games before they get ported to 360.[/QUOTE]
Hopefully MGS4 does, so I wont even need a PS3.
 
[quote name='6669']Hopefully MGS4 does, so I wont even need a PS3.[/quote]

God wouldn't that be nice! I'm not counting on it though. Goddamn Kojima... :cry:
 
From what I've read, most developers are saying that the PS3 and 360 are graphically equal.

It should be noted, however, that all 360 games include Achievements, which is something that the PS3 will probably not offer. So, that is one point for Microsoft.
 
[quote name='the ender']From what I've read, most developers are saying that the PS3 and 360 are graphically equal.

It should be noted, however, that all 360 games include Achievements, which is something that the PS3 will probably not offer. So, that is one point for Microsoft.[/QUOTE]

While PS3 will not have 'achievements' they will have 'Mad Skillz Points'. They are just like achiement points, but called something else instead (Much like Sony does with anything that is successful on other consoles).
 
[quote name='gizmogc']While PS3 will not have 'achievements' they will have 'Mad Skillz Points'. They are just like achiement points, but called something else instead (Much like Sony does with anything that is successful on other consoles).[/quote]

Mad Skillz Points actually sounds better than 'entitlements'.
 
I dont think the ps3 will be graphically better. This generation we were shoveled oodles of horse crap about how great the ps2 was graphically, however, the dreamcast out performed it in alot of games. Look at soul calibur 1 and 3, and they look virtually the same. Elsewise, alot of ports from the DC on ps2 looked worse and slower.
 
[quote name='thingsfallnapart']I dont think the ps3 will be graphically better.[/QUOTE]

This is true.

So many people held off buying a 360, thinking that since the PS3 had a year extra time, it would be graphically superior. There is no indication, so far, anywhere of this.

There is the small possibility that the Cell chip is so ubber powerful yet so different and hard to learn, that 2 or 3 years from now the PS3 outshines the 360.

But as it stands now, from what I hear, they both have very similar bottlenecks. It's just that programming on the 360 isn't likened to a prostate exam with a pitch fork, and the PS3 is. In fact, I'm convinced now that part of Sony's strategy is to intentionally make their consoles a pain in the ass to develop on. They figure that gives the system longer life as devs slowly unlock it's power.
 
[quote name='osmosis11']i hear virtua tennis 3 looks better on ps3, but they are also made by 2 different companies.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/727/727917p1.html[/QUOTE]

I heard that too as the PS3 version is being dev'd by SEGA while the 360 version by Sumo Digital, but thats not the final version and even if the PS3 does appear slightly better than the 360 with this game, the 360 version has online play and the PS3 version does not - overall making the PS3 version the "inferior" one.

In the end, if both versions are worked on by the same team, I am betting the XBOX 360 version will look superior to the PS3 version. John Carmack (Doom/Quake franchises), who is pretty much the most talented game programmer in the world, basically said that the 360 is much easier to get good performance out of than the PS3 resulting in 360 having the edge in graphics. The two consoles have similar-powered GPUs, but the 360's CPU makes more sense for games than the PS3's does. Other talented supergeek programmers like Gabe Newell (Half Life/Counter Strike franchises) agree with Carmack, stating the 360's CPU is much more suited for making games on.

While both consoles have similar power, the XBOX 360 makes it far more easy for devs to grasp that power, which in the end should yield better graphics for gamers.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I heard that too as the PS3 version is being dev'd by SEGA while the 360 version by Sumo Digital, but thats not the final version and even if the PS3 does appear slightly better than the 360 with this game, the 360 version has online play and the PS3 version does not - overall making the PS3 version the "inferior" one.

In the end, if both versions are worked on by the same team, I am betting the XBOX 360 version will look superior to the PS3 version. John Carmack (Doom/Quake franchises), who is pretty much the most talented game programmer in the world, basically said that the 360 is much easier to get good performance out of than the PS3 resulting in 360 having the edge in graphics. The two consoles have similar-powered GPUs, but the 360's CPU makes more sense for games than the PS3's does. Other talented supergeek programmers like Gabe Newell (Half Life/Counter Strike franchises) agree with Carmack, stating the 360's CPU is much more suited for making games on.

While both consoles have similar power, the XBOX 360 makes it far more easy for devs to grasp that power, which in the end should yield better graphics for gamers.[/QUOTE]

This does seem to be the word on the street. The PS3 has a lot of horsepower, but it is not designed for games specifically. The 360 has horsepwoerd designed specifically for games, so overall there seems to be little difference.

I would imagine that the difference between the PS3 and 360 in terms of graphics will be less than was seen between the Gamecube and the XBOX. The real difference will be exclusives.
 
Were there ever any major differences between the Xbox and PS2 versions of games? I know that Splinter Cell, for instance, had some areas of a level chopped off due to memory issues on the PS2 (and GC), but were there any examples of games where it was a night and day difference?

IMO, making a title for all three systems meant that they had to, more or less, develop for the lowest common denominator. We'll never see a graphical difference like there was between Genesis and SNES again.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
IMO, making a title for all three systems meant that they had to, more or less, develop for the lowest common denominator. We'll never see a graphical difference like there was between Genesis and SNES again.[/QUOTE]

Speaking from some experience, you are relatively correct. When a developer sets out to make a game for more than one console, that does cripple the game quite a bit. The only real differences you have time to make are different texture resolutions.

The only time you will see a game really shine on any platform is when it's developed specifically for that Platform. Look at RE4 on GC. Or Ninja Gaiden on Xbox.

Speaking of which, now might be a good time to point at the dude that made Ninja Gaiden, and what he has to say on the subject of console exclusive titles.
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/itagaki/itagaki-ill-never-leave-you-xbox-204401.php
 
I've heard alot about which ones will look better, mostly that the 360 versions will be superior, but this is for various reasons likely to change over time.

So, to quote Enya, only time can tell.
 
[quote name='osmosis11']some ps3 ports could potentially have more extra features because the blu-ray disc has more memory than a dvd, right?[/QUOTE]

yes but good luck finding a developer that has the resources to make more than 9 gigs of actual game.

If you like tons of pre-rendered FMV in your game, then sure.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Were there ever any major differences between the Xbox and PS2 versions of games? I know that Splinter Cell, for instance, had some areas of a level chopped off due to memory issues on the PS2 (and GC), but were there any examples of games where it was a night and day difference?

[/QUOTE]

Every Tom Clancy game(Splinter Cell series, Rainbow Six series, ghost recon), Spiderman 2, Max Payne 1+2, Psychonauts, Wreckless, X-men Legends 1+2(720p vs 480i plus bunch of jaggies) are some that come to mind. I've done side by side comparisons with most of those games and the ps2 versions look horrible in comparison. And of course there are other games like soul calibur, which dont look night and day, but do look better on xbox and dont have slowdown.

I dont think its really fair to compare comparisons with ps2/xbox to ps3/360, since the jump in power doesnt seem to be drastic. It probably just wont matter. I mean, the cube was alot closer to power to the xbox, and when a multi platform game was actually done right on both consoles, you could hardly tell the difference(ala Soul Calibur II).
 
Potentially? The PS3 multiplatform games could look better.

In reality? Because they have to base multiplatform games (meaning 360 and PS3....the Wii is a whole other story) around the lowest common denominator, the PS3 releases will often be "held back" a bit unless the developer really wants to bust ass and rework parts of the game to maximize the PS3's power - not likely, in this day and age.

Someone already mentioned previous console comparisons...I'd guess this time around the 360 vs. PS3, graphically, will be a lot closer to the XBox vs. Gamecube than it would be XBox vs. PS2. Maybe little nitpicky things here and there, but very little worth paying attention to. The time of release between the 360 and PS3 does not really reflect the age difference of the technology inside them.

Sure, it'll pull off some eye-candy 360 can't do at some point, but it's not worth losing sleep over.
 
The more I talk to people that have studied the hardware... I am really not sure you'll ever see much difference in "eye candy" as in "things look prettier".

If the PS3 can eventually edge out the 360 in performance, it will most likely be in physics or AI. If the Cell turns out to be super powerful and devs learn how to unlock it's potential, it won't likely be seen as "eye candy" in the literal sense of prettier pictures, because the GPU isn't any more powerful than 360's.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']yes but good luck finding a developer that has the resources to make more than 9 gigs of actual game.

If you like tons of pre-rendered FMV in your game, then sure.[/quote]


Ign interviewed the lair devoloper

IGN: What advantage does Blu-ray afford you now? Everyone talks about how great the extra storage space is but are you actually using it for Lair?

Eggebrecht: The single level at TGS alone takes up 4 Gigabytes of data. We are using every ounce of that due to streaming of our textures. Sure you could chop them all down to tiny sizes and we would fit, but then again, it would not be the same game. In addition to all the textures and geometry, we also do have video on the disc, and all of that is in native 1080p resolution. Thanks to Blu-Ray we don't need to worry about that and can still fit the whole game on a single disk.

also
IGN: Quick Fanboy wars question -- Could Lair be done under its current spec on the Xbox 360? If so, why go with the PlayStation 3 "only" instead of going cross-platform?

Eggebrecht: Lair in its current form couldn't be done on 360. We are using large amounts of Cell's SPUs for all of our geometry, landscape, simulations, animations, even troop AI. When we create a game, we absolutely focus on the platform it is designed around. Would we do one for 360, it would be a different game and a different engine -- most crucially perhaps though: Lair is an entirely different game without the motion control and gesture recognition since it was designed around it.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/733/733921p5.html

and another interview with the resistance guy

IGN: Would it have been possible to create Resistance on anything but the PlayStation 3, like the PS2, Xbox 360 or PC, and if not, why? Have you had the idea for the game on the backburner and been saving it for capable hardware?

Ted Price, Founder & CEO: It would have been very, very difficult to create Resistance on any other platform. First, this game requires an incredible amount of processing power to support the large number of moving characters and objects in the levels. Every one of our characters has sophisticated AI and navigation routines running in the background. Plus, every object -- including characters -- has to access our physics and collision systems constantly. And, of course, I'm ignoring all the other processes that have to occur simultaneously to create immersive, believable environments. What a game like Resistance requires is parallel processing on a massive scale and fortunately the Cell's SPUs give us this. We can take complex and expensive systems and move them onto the SPUs, which are extremely good at number-crunching. When these systems run in parallel it means we can do more per frame and that means more detail in the game.

Second, the game requires more than 20 gigabytes of storage space, which means that the only viable storage medium for us is Blu-ray. We could not have fit this game on a DVD or a HD-DVD. So, yet another reason that the game could only have been created on the PlayStation 3.

pixy.gif

http://http://ps3.ign.com/articles/729/729630p4.html
We haven't had this idea on the backburner for years. We knew that we wanted to do a FPS when the PS3 was announced but the game's design evolved significantly as we moved through pre-production. The reason the game's design evolved was not because of the hardware -- in fact we've been pleasantly surprised with what the PS3 can really do -- it was because designing games here at Insomniac is a collaborative process and we're never afraid to change something if it makes the game better

http://http://ps3.ign.com/articles/729/729630p4.html


pixy.gif



so it seems like some devolopers plan on using a ton of storage space. If it used efficiently or not is another question.
 
Well, the way I look at it, game publishers want to make the most money. Making extra crap or adding extra polish just for the PS3, which will have a relatively low installed base for a little while, doesn't make sense or cents.
 
The problem with interviewing the developers of Lair and Resistance is that they have a built in bias since they are second party developers. Resistance did not seem to have any more going on than Call of Duty 2, Ninety Nine Nights, Dead Rising or Kameo. As far as looks, I have yet to see any game that looks head and shoulders above anything on the 360.

I am leaning more and more toward getting a PS3, but it is not because I think it is that much more powerful than the 360. It would be for the exclusives like Resistance and Dark Kingdom. Blu Ray is nice, but I would rather buy the cheaper DVD version of most movies.
 
by the time developers do anything super exciting with the ps3 hardware (if at all) the ps3 should be within purchasing range of everyone else that isn't a rabid fanboy.
 
Pretty amazing comments on the PS3 considering most games don't use up more than 3 gigs on a DVD (for a better...in my opinion...PC version). If they use a dual layered DVD, then that's not even half the space. These developers are just wasting space and not compressing these textures and videos. It makes their lives easier, but it could probably be done on the 360, but they are obligated to push their game on the PS3. I'm going to buy a PS3 for the exclusives, as I do all systems, but this B.S. is well....B.S.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']yes but good luck finding a developer that has the resources to make more than 9 gigs of actual game.

If you like tons of pre-rendered FMV in your game, then sure.[/QUOTE]

game size doubles/triples with each generation, what makes you think this one is different?
 
The reason those PS3 games are taking up so much space is the data isn't compressed much if at all. It'll mean the PS3 won't have to decompress the data but it's not going to make a noticable difference in how good the games look/play. At least not yet.
 
[quote name='omegaweapon7']game size doubles/triples with each generation, what makes you think this one is different?[/QUOTE]

I'm not doubting the games get larger due to more textures and such, but so far I haven't seen anything special from the PS3. Even Devil May Cry 4 looks slow. I was a bit saddened by that. I'm still waiting to see how the PS3 pulls off the online system, coz not much has been said about it. I like how Live is set up and it is a breeze to use and fun to communicate with friends. However, if Sony leaves America out (like they have for many things PSP and PS2)...I'm going to be disappointed with Sony.
 
Notice how they squeezed in there the comment "which means that the only viable storage medium for us is Blue-ray. We could not have fit this game on a DVD or a HD-DVD." Sony must really be scared blue ray is going to fail. In all reality it's hard to imagine NEEDING that much more space.
 
[quote name='omegaweapon7']game size doubles/triples with each generation, what makes you think this one is different?[/QUOTE]

Compression algorithms double and triple each generation as well.

Regardless, I know of no 360 developer that has felt they had to cut back on their game because of the size of a DVD. And if there was one, there isn't really a problem in going multi-disk.
 
All the comments about Blu-Ray for textures/geometry. Lol. The PS3 has only 256mb of video RAM and 256mb of system RAM, meaning you can't load more than 512mb worth of crap into memory at one time. In other words, as we all know, Blu-Ray will only be useful for ungodly amounts of HD FMV, and even in that case it is limited as VC-1 can store HD FMV in very little space. You couldn't do jack shit with more than a DVD worth of textures+geometry because you wouldn't be able to load it into memory for display!
 
[quote name='Ruined']All the comments about Blu-Ray for textures/geometry. Lol. The PS3 has only 256mb of video RAM and 256mb of system RAM, meaning you can't load more than 512mb worth of crap into memory at one time. In other words, as we all know, Blu-Ray will only be useful for ungodly amounts of HD FMV, and even in that case it is limited as VC-1 can store HD FMV in very little space. You couldn't do jack shit with more than a DVD worth of textures+geometry because you wouldn't be able to load it into memory for display![/QUOTE]

Well I have to say you are wrong. If what you are saying were true, then you'd only ever need 512 megs of game data.

The argument Sony is trying to make is that their games will be better because they can have much bigger worlds and more variety in the graphics. They are essentially saying that developers can now use more than 9 gigs of compressed textures to span the entire game. Theoretically they are correct. But 9 gigs of well compressed art is A LOT more than most developers will make for a single game and still only charge you $60.
 
Of course those two developers are going to say their games could only be done on Blu-ray...what do you expect them to say?

"Our games could easily be done on 360, but because Sony is footing the bill, we can't do that!"

:p
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well I have to say you are wrong. If what you are saying were true, then you'd only ever need 512 megs of game data. [/quote]

How do you figure that? Just because 512MB is all that can fit into RAM at any given time doesn't mean that's all you need. RAM is flushed and filled 10s of times during your average game.
 
[quote name='graf1k']How do you figure that? Just because 512MB is all that can fit into RAM at any given time doesn't mean that's all you need. RAM is flushed and filled 10s of times during your average game.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. He was trying to make it sound like because ram is only 512 megs, you really don't need anything bigger than a DVD for a game, as if the amount of ram is the size of the game.

You couldn't do jack shit with more than a DVD worth of textures+geometry because you wouldn't be able to load it into memory for display!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top