Saints Row developer Volition has elaborated on the botched release of the original game on PS3, telling CVG in an interview "we just couldn't get our heads around the Cell technology".
"In Saints Row 1 we got about half way through the process and then we realised that we just couldn't get our heads around Cell," producer Dan Sutton told CVG. "It's just really complicated and I'm sure you noticed other games like Stranglehold push their dates up.
"Cell's really, really powerful. The problem is it's also a really different system, the way it uses multi-threading technology."
Saints Row was released on Xbox 360 in 2006 and appeared on the cover of various PS3 magazines the following year, only to be quietly cancelled. "It was really hard for us to wrap our heads around and we got to the point where we were like, 'if we're going to release it it's going to be way too late'," said Sutton.
For the sequel Volition has since hired a dedicated PS3 team to tackle the hardware. "Now we're up to showing PS3 at the same level and only one day behind the Xbox, which is really exciting for us," Sutton said.
But are the problems over for PS3 multi-platform development? "I think it's closing. There are still difficulties on it, I think you still see some games push out their PlayStation ports a little bit later. I think now the support's there at least - we've had many conversations with Sony trying to get our heads around that.
"We see PlayStation-only bugs pop up. There are Xbox only bugs too, but the problem is those PlayStation-only bugs are so complicated and Sony didn't have the support to help us out during the Saints Row 1 development. But now we have that support and it's really exciting."
The way I see it is: The cell processor is like a new frontier in gaming development. Yes, it is more difficult and complicated than the 360 architecture, but is that only because it is new? Developers are like scientists in their pursuit of new boundaries, so I believe all great developers are keen to prove their worth with this new technology.
All that doesn't mean that Saints Row 2 will be any good though....
The way I see it is: The cell processor is like a new frontier in gaming development. Yes, it is more difficult and complicated than the 360 architecture, but is that only because it is new? Developers are like scientists in their pursuit of new boundaries, so I believe all great developers are keen to prove their worth with this new technology.
Things never need to be difficult. When it comes down to the games, the 360 has the exact same performance (give or take a little bit - it has more power for FSAA for example), and yet developers can knock out games extremely quickly for it.
There is absolutely no excuse for Sony creating such a difficult system. All developers that mention this say the same thing: The way they did multi-threading is extremely illogical.
another couple of years and the 360 wont even be close - it doesnt have any hidden tricks up its sleeve
You do realise that the whole point of 'hidden tricks' mean they're hidden, right? How you can say what you just said without cracking a smile is beyond me..
the difference of the first wave of games for the saturn (also notorious) compared to the last waves was night and day.
i think the ps3 will end up the same. another couple of years and the 360 wont even be close - it doesnt have any hidden tricks up its sleeve, its more of a what-you-see/what-you-get type of system.
its also down to expert coding. lobotomy for instance got solid versions of, then big pc games, quake and duke nukem. the saturn was known for its 3D short-comings, while psx's speciality was 3D.
the saturn ended up with amazing versions of both games - thought to be impossible and the psx versions were very bad..
Bang on. PS2 was the same.
These guys are either lazy or just bad at their jobs.
These guys are either lazy or just bad at their jobs.
So basically, the huge number of high-profile devs that have already complained about the difficulty of programming for PS3 - are all lazy and/or bad at their jobs?
Of course, that must be it. I mean, all those games they make on PC and 360 must be made by somebody else...
Graphics get better with a console's life. Just look at the early PS1 and PS3 games compared to the ones a few years after the consoles came out. Developers just need time to tap into it.
The 360 didn't have this problem because it's basically a PC and people have been developing for PC's for years. However I feel that the 360 has hit it's hardware limit with games like Gears 1+2. Which are still very good.
But I can't wait to see what the future holds for the CELL. It is indeed VERY powerful and this power needs to be harnessed. I think that someone like team Ico will show us what it's capable of soon enough. People just need more time to get to know it.
The way I see it is: The cell processor is like a new frontier in gaming development. Yes, it is more difficult and complicated than the 360 architecture, but is that only because it is new? Developers are like scientists in their pursuit of new boundaries, so I believe all great developers are keen to prove their worth with this new technology.
Things never need to be difficult. When it comes down to the games, the 360 has the exact same performance (give or take a little bit - it has more power for FSAA for example), and yet developers can knock out games extremely quickly for it.
There is absolutely no excuse for Sony creating such a difficult system. All developers that mention this say the same thing: The way they did multi-threading is extremely illogical.
another couple of years and the 360 wont even be close - it doesnt have any hidden tricks up its sleeve
You do realise that the whole point of 'hidden tricks' mean they're hidden, right? How you can say what you just said without cracking a smile is beyond me..
Yeah, but you are always going to say that, right? Sony machines have always been synonimous with games not using the machines full potential until years into its life. PC archtecture has proved that games do not advance until technology advances. As the 360 uses the same architecture as a PC, it may start to look dated sooner than the PS3.
But there is no proof of either happening yet, so don't have a pop. Just my opinion.
Graphics get better with a console's life. Just look at the early PS1 and PS3 games compared to the ones a few years after the consoles came out. Developers just need time to tap into it.
The 360 didn't have this problem because it's basically a PC and people have been developing for PC's for years. However I feel that the 360 has hit it's hardware limit with games like Gears 1+2. Which are still very good.
But I can't wait to see what the future holds for the CELL. It is indeed VERY powerful and this power needs to be harnessed. I think that someone like team Ico will show us what it's capable of soon enough. People just need more time to get to know it.
But isnt that the whole point? Nobody wants to have to wait it out when they've bought a console.
Gears 1 + 2 are very good looking, but the 360 is still capable of more. Look at Far Cry 2 - personally I think there is more detail (visually) in that game than Gears. And I'm still yet to see a PS3 game that looks and runs as well as Gears.
Yeah, but you are always going to say that, right? Sony machines have always been synonimous with games not using the machines full potential until years into its life. PC archtecture has proved that games do not advance until technology advances. As the 360 uses the same architecture as a PC, it may start to look dated sooner than the PS3.
But there is no proof of either happening yet, so don't have a pop. Just my opinion.
You'll take this as a 'pop' anyway, but whatever.
You're completely wrong about that. First of all, like I already said - why should people have to wait? They can buy other systems (PC, 360) that have much better visuals and way better performance NOW. What is the point in buying a PS3 to wait 3 or 4 years to get games looking and playing as good as they did those 3 or 4 years back?
Also your point is proven entirely wrong by the fact that PC's have much better visuals (Crysis) than anything the PS3 has done - and yet its the exact same architecture as the 360. So why do Sony feel the need to create such a complicated system when the technology that devlopers have already does far more?
Devs have to re-learn everything when a new Sony system comes out and its totally pointless.
The 360 didn't have this problem because it's basically a PC
This is a line that I see trotted out a lot, and frankly it's nonsense. It was true for the Xbox 1, but not the 360.
How many PCs that you're aware of have a triple-core PowerPC based CPU? In truth, the 360's core architecture is closer to the Wii and the PS3 (believe it or not) than it is to an x86 PC.
the difference of the first wave of games for the saturn (also notorious) compared to the last waves was night and day.
i think the ps3 will end up the same. another couple of years and the 360 wont even be close - it doesnt have any hidden tricks up its sleeve, its more of a what-you-see/what-you-get type of system.
its also down to expert coding. lobotomy for instance got solid versions of, then big pc games, quake and duke nukem. the saturn was known for its 3D short-comings, while psx's speciality was 3D.
the saturn ended up with amazing versions of both games - thought to be impossible and the psx versions were very bad..
I remember buying a Saturn for the exact same reasons back in 1997. It was billed as a machine that had capable 3D and better 2D potential (at the time I loved platformers like Guardian Hero) and it had multiformat games like Wipeout. However, it got absoutely wiped by the PS1 which was a shame as I thought there were room for both systems.
Developers 'might' be able to get more out of the ps3 in the future but, most games games are multi format now and the quality of the different versions will be decided by the lesser of the two, so the extra muscle in the ps3 'which is still not apparent and entirely heresay' will not make a lot of difference anyhow.
Developers 'might' be able to get more out of the ps3 in the future but, most games games are multi format now and the quality of the different versions will be decided by the lesser of the two, so the extra muscle in the ps3 'which is still not apparent and entirely heresay' will not make a lot of difference anyhow.
the 360 is power pc based which is like the non intel mac architecture i think (risc?), so nothing like a pc at all. it's just easier to code for. Sony seem to take the attitude of "we'll build what the fu*k we want and you devs can then get your head around it". This apporach means devs take a while to get used to the architecture and so 1st/2nd generation games seem to be a bit meh. history tells us that in X number of years the PS3 games should be quite a bit better. However, that doesn't mean the 360 has spunked it's load already. both systems have a bright future.
Developers 'might' be able to get more out of the ps3 in the future but, most games games are multi format now and the quality of the different versions will be decided by the lesser of the two, so the extra muscle in the ps3 'which is still not apparent and entirely heresay' will not make a lot of difference anyhow.
Your right in a fashion, but I'm talking about 1st party games. I think by next year, the PS3 will have some technically amazing games, starting with KZ2.
Your right in a fashion, but I'm talking about 1st party games. I think by next year, the PS3 will have some technically amazing games, starting with KZ2.
Very true, but nothing that can't be done on 360 or PC. The only real beef I have is that Sony are still trying (and succeeding in a lot of cases) to make people believe the PS3 is 100x more powerful than the 360 and that they should all wait 10 years to see how good it is.
Your right in a fashion, but I'm talking about 1st party games. I think by next year, the PS3 will have some technically amazing games, starting with KZ2.
Very true, but nothing that can't be done on 360 or PC. The only real beef I have is that Sony are still trying (and succeeding in a lot of cases) to make people believe the PS3 is 100x more powerful than the 360 and that they should all wait 10 years to see how good it is.
Well, in all honesty, the PS3 still has to go some to beat Gears 2.
Honestly, the days for developers to claim difficulty in coding for the PS3 are over. 1st party devs have been doing just fine since it's launch, and even some 3rd party devs are rocking with it. Say what you will about the cutscenes and all that, but MGS4 is absolutely gorgeous. Uncharted, gorgeous.
As for the possibilities w/in the PS3, who knows, are any of you developers? Any of you ever touched the internals of a PS3? No? Then why are you commenting on it? Devs, engineers and the like have all had their say in the internals of both machines, and bottom line is, Sony traditionally makes machines that take time to maximize performance. Has happened with every Sony console. Look at a launch game for the PS2, then compare it to GoW2 or Shadows of the Colossus. As a previous poster stated, it's night and day.
As for the possibilities w/in the PS3, who knows, are any of you developers? Any of you ever touched the internals of a PS3? No? Then why are you commenting on it?
No but a lot of us are tech heads that know what all the specs mean. And we know when Sony is lying through its teeth about how far ahead the PS3 is compared to other machines.
Devs, engineers and the like have all had their say in the internals of both machines, and bottom line is, Sony traditionally makes machines that take time to maximize performance. Has happened with every Sony console. Look at a launch game for the PS2, then compare it to GoW2 or Shadows of the Colossus. As a previous poster stated, it's night and day.
It was 'tradition' for people to go around in white hoods killing black people.
As for the possibilities w/in the PS3, who knows, are any of you developers? Any of you ever touched the internals of a PS3? No? Then why are you commenting on it?
No but a lot of us are tech heads that know what all the specs mean. And we know when Sony is lying through its teeth about how far ahead the PS3 is compared to other machines.
Devs, engineers and the like have all had their say in the internals of both machines, and bottom line is, Sony traditionally makes machines that take time to maximize performance. Has happened with every Sony console. Look at a launch game for the PS2, then compare it to GoW2 or Shadows of the Colossus. As a previous poster stated, it's night and day.
It was 'tradition' for people to go around in white hoods killing black people.
the fact of the matter is that the CELL processor wasn't designed for games and isn't a very good general purpose processor. Intel and AMD make powerful general purpose processors that use brute force to do lots of calculations and as a result are better for games. the 360 is also general purpose but kind limited in relation to PC processors but has only one configuration so is easily optimised compared to PC's.
the PS3 on the other hand is handicapped by a processor designed to do lots of simple tasks very quickly, which is good for TV's and bluray players but not so good for games where the content is variable. how much further the ps3 can go depends on the other hardware it uses too such as the graphics chip, bandwidth and memory speed, and to be honest it is never going to be anywhere near current PC's so i cant see a big jump at all.
devs would prefer a simple system as good results are easily achievable in a short time frame and can then be optimised. ps3 games take longer and therefore cost more or some work is skipped like optimisation maybe? i cant help but feel the CELL was used to enable the PS3 good bluray playback capability, but then again i could just be cynical.
MGS4 easily rivals GOW graphically, and beats it in my opinion, the way the cut scenes blend together with in-game is astonishing. and gameplay wise, MGS kicks it in the balls.
MGS4 is a nice looking game, but it's visual oomph isn't very close to UE3. The amount of detail Gears 2 has on every texture is way ahead of MGS4's textures.
Of course it's a gorgeous game, I'm not denying that - but the engines are completely different, and I dont think anybody could disagree that GoW is far more detailed (visually) than MGS4. Simply putting Snake and Marcus in-game models next to each other shows the huge contrast in detail.
It's good to hear that developers are finally getting their heads around the PS3 architecture, and that there might be a bright future for the machine after all, but that fact that Sony have a tradition of putting out "machines that take time to maximize performance" is not something that anybody can be proud of.
If I'm going to shell out for a new console, I usually prefer to get something tangible back for my outlay, not just promises of what may be at some undefined point in the future.
The PS3 for me at the moment is like those empty Star Wars boxes they sold back in the eighties when they couldn't churn out the action figures fast enough. You knew you kind of owned something special, but you never had actually got to play with and have fun with it until the geezers on the other end got around to delivering on those promises.
Hopefully when the PS4 comes around, they'll really work on giving both their customers and their developers what they actually want this time, and we won't have to endure anymore Sony execs telling us that "Yes, the PS3 was a failure for the first x years of it's life, but next time we'll focus on the people who really matter instead of pushing our own business concerns..."
The simple matter is the PS3 was designed as a multimedia hub and primarily as a Blu-Ray player.
The Cell processor itself was never designed with gaming specifically in mind but rather as a general purpose chip that could be used in a variety of multimedia devices, so rather than Sony getting a kick up the bottom for designing a poor gaming console CPU, the devs get it in the neck for allegedly being too lazy having to deal with s**t architecture and support.
Gears of War action: http://data.earthli.com/news/attachments/entry/1287/gears_of_war.jpeg
Metal Gear Solid action: http://img.hexus.net/v2/gaming/screenshots_ps3/metal/metal1_large.jpg
Gears of War characters: http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1863/1191473643.jpg
Metal Gear Solid characters: http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/804/804317/metal-gear-solid-4-guns-of-the-patriots--20070712014600775.jpg
Basically just to prove my point about the texture detail. MGS4 looks very nice, but everything is all smooth and plasticy rather than rough and detailed. Of course its pure opinion on which one you prefer, but the technical specs of each engine is clear.
my understanding of the difficulty in programming for the ps3 has to do with the cell chip. which is a completly new way of doing things (according to wat ive managed to google) as before technologies simply built up on one another like layers the cell chip does away with that and provides a faster cheaper way to do it. but because this is a new way to do things it takes time to learn and adapt to. do i think it makes the ps3 better/faster than the 360? no one can tell the future but i think they are more equal than people like to admit!
GOW is flashier due to its sci-fi nature, which means the can basically make stuff up. MGS is more realistic and has to mimick real world stuff.
and if they "action" screens are really in-game, where are the crosshairs?!
If you can't understand that 'ingame' doesnt always mean 'from the gameplay perspective', then I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you the intricacies of looking out your window and seeing what real life looks like.
You don't need to be a sci-fi game in order to have realistic textures. MGS4, as I've already said, is gorgeous, but I didnt realise that real humans looked like barbie dolls.
The fact of the matter is the textures in GoW2 are far more detailed. Look at any screenshot of MGS4, and you can see how the walls are flat, the faces have no texture to them etc
And you seem to be forgetting that MGS is sci-fi...
GOW is flashier due to its sci-fi nature, which means the can basically make stuff up. MGS is more realistic and has to mimick real world stuff.
and if they "action" screens are really in-game, where are the crosshairs?!
If you can't understand that 'ingame' doesnt always mean 'from the gameplay perspective', then I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you the intricacies of looking out your window and seeing what real life looks like.
You don't need to be a sci-fi game in order to have realistic textures. MGS4, as I've already said, is gorgeous, but I didnt realise that real humans looked like barbie dolls.
The fact of the matter is the textures in GoW2 are far more detailed. Look at any screenshot of MGS4, and you can see how the walls are flat, the faces have no texture to them etc
And you seem to be forgetting that MGS is sci-fi...
I'm not sure MGS4 does look "gorgeous" to be honest...sure it's a tour de force graphics-wise by PS3 standards but as you've already mentioned many of the textures look very low-res as if memory was an issue and to compare them either Gears game either static or in-motion is a joke really.
And you seem to be forgetting that MGS is sci-fi...
i was thinking that. MGS has metal gears, A.I's, camo suits, arms or hands stitched to another person, nanotech, the list goes on. it is most certainly not real world. GTA4 is real world and i think it does it pretty well considering the detail the real world has compared to made up places usually featured in games.
sci-fi, as in possible in the distant future. not sci-fi with outer space aliens.
you cant comment on MGS unless your have played it or seen it running (on a 1080p screen - not a web video)
the snow blizzard level and south america levels are particularly nice. all GOW is grey rocks, graphically amazing or not, they are still drab.
Pishers hit the nail on the head. MGS4 is certainly not possible in the distant future. No more so than Gears, I mean.
And I would not say what I'm saying had I not seen both in motion on a high definition TV. There is no competition. MGS4 lacks the texture detail when compared to UE3. And thats a technological fact.
The thing is if developers don't find programming for the PS3 any easier then things will end up the way it did with the PS2, when after 2002 PC conversions dried up. The PS2 conversion of Elite Force was awfull, at one point there was so much slow-down I thought my PS2 locked up!
The thing is if developers don't find programming for the PS3 any easier then things will end up the way it did with the PS2, when after 2002 PC conversions dried up. The PS2 conversion of Elite Force was awfull, at one point there was so much slow-down I thought my PS2 locked up!
Developers 'might' be able to get more out of the ps3 in the future but, most games games are multi format now and the quality of the different versions will be decided by the lesser of the two, so the extra muscle in the ps3 'which is still not apparent and entirely heresay' will not make a lot of difference anyhow.
Your right in a fashion, but I'm talking about 1st party games. I think by next year, the PS3 will have some technically amazing games, starting with KZ2.
If 720p at 30fps is technically amazing to you, you might be right about KZ2
MGS4 easily rivals GOW graphically, and beats it in my opinion, the way the cut scenes blend together with in-game is astonishing. and gameplay wise, MGS kicks it in the balls.
MGS4 does some really stunning character-models yes. Physics, effects and backdrops are just decent, nothing more. Maybe you should try to look beyond the gorgeous characters.
As is well known, the PS3 graphics processor isn't as potent as Xbox 360's, so I wonder if that will always be a bottleneck. I suspect PS3 games can get cleverer, but not prettier. For example smarter AI and better physics models; but you're never going to see a sudden jump in polygon count as some clueless fanboys seem to think will magically appear in six month's time.
The cell certainly has untapped potential, but it's like drilling for oil: the difference in improvement is inversely proportional to the amount of work needed to eke it out. So a lot of developers just won't bother aiming for that last few percent.
i do. its about fun, and its a much better game than GOW to play. one is an on-rails shooter, the other you can sneak, stealth, run and gun, shoot, gas, throttle, punch, kick, stab, slice or petrol bomb your enemies.
I thought we were discussing the graphical side and not so much the enjoyment you get out of it because that's something very personal.
And yes, very nice lighting in some places ... on low-res backdrops unfortunately
People talk about the power of the cell processor likes its some sort of mystical amulet that will unleash an unequalled level of quality upon the gaming world.
Let's get some facts straight here.
The best-selling console this generation, the Wii, has - relatively speaking - a pretty poor specification. So in terms of guaranteed success, the power of cell has proven nothing as of yet.
If one were to counter-argue that in the long term the PS3 will outshine other consoles because its latent power will see it continue to improve where others stagnate, I would tend to disagree. If anything, history has shown that quite often less powerful consoles dictate the standard for all but exclusive titles (the PS2 is a perfect example of this), but again, 3rd party exclusives are becoming increasingly thin on the ground for PS3, 360 or even PC.
So the only place the extra horsepower will really count is in first party titles, which - to be fair - may prove the PS3 to be the most powerful system (as I suspect in some ways it is).
For almost every other developer though, the cells' architecture has (and will continue to when new devs come along) provide little more than a stumbling block as they try to get identical performance from the 360 and PS3 versions of their titles. I don't think that's being lazy or stupid either; I think its down to poor design on Sonys' part that all that power is so difficult for even experienced devs to initially tap into.
Arguing that its difficult to extract the potential from cell because its just that powerful is both ignorant and pandering to Sonys' marketing spin. Remember the hooha about the Emotion Engine? It too wasn't hard to programme for because it was so good, it was hard to programme for because it was so confusingly designed.
Maybe this is Sonys' strategy? Make something really powerful, lock the power up by making development really difficult, and then when devs finally get their head around it, people can say "Wow! Now we're really seeing the true power of *insert ridiculous processor trademark here*!!!"
Just don't believe the hype, that's all I can say...
i do. its about fun, and its a much better game than GOW to play. one is an on-rails shooter, the other you can sneak, stealth, run and gun, shoot, gas, throttle, punch, kick, stab, slice or petrol bomb your enemies.
but for a game getting perfect scores on its graphics the effects are more than just decent. the sun rising through the long grass in south america is amazing.
Hold on. Hold on right there.
I'm pretty sure this whole argument has been for nothing, since you're clearly playing a completely different 'Gears of War' to the rest of us.
When was GoW ever an 'on-rails shooter'??
But I'm still going to say how wrong you are about the other stuff. Since when were IGN the authority on all things factual? What they say is an opinion. Just because they say 'best graphics on xxx' doesnt mean it's true. You're surely not using that as a basis for your argument?
I've said it before and I will say it again:
Metal Gear Solid 4's textures are plain, flat and dull in comparison to Gears of War
I would love to see you try and prove me wrong with actual images. I dont care about your words and how you try to twist everything, I want you to actually go out and find screenshots of both games that show MGS4 with clearer, crisper textures that have more detail than GoW (1 or 2) - it's simlpy not possible. Because they dont exist.
Gears of War action: http://data.earthli.com/news/attachments/entry/1287/gears_of_war.jpeg
Metal Gear Solid action: http://img.hexus.net/v2/gaming/screenshots_ps3/metal/metal1_large.jpg
Gears of War characters: http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/1863/1191473643.jpg
Metal Gear Solid characters: http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/804/804317/metal-gear-solid-4-guns-of-the-patriots--20070712014600775.jpg
Basically just to prove my point about the texture detail. MGS4 looks very nice, but everything is all smooth and plasticy rather than rough and detailed. Of course its pure opinion on which one you prefer, but the technical specs of each engine is clear.
Xbob fail.
Xbot fail.
The fact is MGS4 is NOT possible on 360 in all its technical glory. Sure, textures on Gears 2 are superior, but what about all the other game processes going on? Like computer enemy AI, which I'm willing to bet is more demanding in MGS4 than the kamikaze cannon fodder enemies G2. Also, the locales in MGS4 is more ofteh than not bigger than in G2 i'm willing to bet.
Whereas Gears 2 is easily posible on ps3. Look at UT3 - a much more technicaly demanding game than Gears 2 and it runs like a dream.
The fact is MGS4 is NOT possible on 360 in all its technical glory. Sure, textures on Gears 2 are superior, but what about all the other game processes going on? Like computer AI, which I'm willing to bet is more demanding in MGS4 than the kamikaze cannon fodder in G2. Also, the locales in MGS4 is more ofteh than not bigger than H2 i'm willing to bet.
Whereas Gears 2 is easily posible on ps3. Look at UT3 - a much more technicaly demanding game than Gears 2 and it runs like a dream.
I've deleted your xbot comments since they only go to show you up as the retard that you are - I dont want to have to embarrass you any further.
Metal Gear Solid is not as technological as you're imagining. It is a game, like any other. It uses no special magical powers inside the PS3, it uses a CPU, memory, a GPU and audio processors. All of which are available in every single PC and 360 around the world.
You're completely brainwashed if you believe that MGS4 can't run on the 360. It's one of the most empty, baron games of this generation. It looks nice, but it's a far cry (ha) away from games like Crysis (which - lets not forget - fits perfectly onto one DVD) and Gears of War 2 in terms of texture detail.
It's a technological fact that the 360 can handle Metal Gear Solid 4. It's no more advanced than Metal Gear Solid 2 or 3 are in terms of AI and gameplay mechanics - that is also a fact. If you understood about how hardware and software worked together, I'd be able to have a proper discussion with you about all the reasons as to why that game will run on the 360, but you're obviously just here to spark a fanboy bitch-slapping session, and I just can't be bothered with people like you.
It's time for all you idiotic fanboys to put your money where your mouth is. I would like you to explain in factual technological terms why the PS3 is more powerful than the 360.
I don't want your bulls**t copy + pastes from Wikipedia (especially since all specifications prove you wrong anyway), I don't want your childish attempts at insulting a peice of plastic, I just want you to prove you even know what you're talking about. I don't care what you 'think' or what you 'believe' from what Sony told you - I want you to tell me WHY it is more powerful.
Because 99% of the time, not one of you even has a clue about what goes on inside the box you wasted £300+ on. Both systems are so close you'd wet your pants if you even understood.
The fact is MGS4 is NOT possible on 360 in all its technical glory. Sure, textures on Gears 2 are superior, but what about all the other game processes going on? Like computer AI, which I'm willing to bet is more demanding in MGS4 than the kamikaze cannon fodder in G2. Also, the locales in MGS4 is more ofteh than not bigger than H2 i'm willing to bet.
Whereas Gears 2 is easily posible on ps3. Look at UT3 - a much more technicaly demanding game than Gears 2 and it runs like a dream.
Metal Gear Solid is not as technological as you're imagining. It is a game, like any other. It uses no special magical powers inside the PS3, it uses a CPU, memory, a GPU and audio processors. All of which are available in every single PC and 360 around the world.
You're completely brainwashed if you believe that MGS4 can't run on the 360. It's one of the most empty, baron games of this generation. It looks nice, but it's a far cry (ha) away from games like Crysis (which - lets not forget - fits perfectly onto one DVD) and Gears of War 2 in terms of texture detail.
It's a technological fact that the 360 can handle Metal Gear Solid 4. It's no more advanced than Metal Gear Solid 2 or 3 are in terms of AI and gameplay mechanics - that is also a fact. If you understood about how hardware and software worked together, I'd be able to have a proper discussion with you about all the reasons as to why that game will run on the 360, but you're obviously just here to spark a fanboy bitch-slapping session, and I just can't be bothered with people like you.
Don't make me embarrass you in front of your xbot friends you kid.
Crysis is possible on a single DVD because a PC is not like a console. Crysis needs installing on the PC and uses the systems advanced reserves of RAM and space to keep things running smooth.
Crysis, or a game of similar graphics, wouldn't be possible on a console using a single DVD. That suggestion of yours is quite laughable and reveals you to be a kid with no knowledge of what you are talking about.
The fact is MGS4 is NOT possible on 360 in all its technical glory. Sure, textures on Gears 2 are superior, but what about all the other game processes going on? Like computer AI, which I'm willing to bet is more demanding in MGS4 than the kamikaze cannon fodder in G2. Also, the locales in MGS4 is more ofteh than not bigger than H2 i'm willing to bet.
Whereas Gears 2 is easily posible on ps3. Look at UT3 - a much more technicaly demanding game than Gears 2 and it runs like a dream.
I've deleted your xbot comments since they only go to show you up as the retard that you are - I dont want to have to embarrass you any further.
Metal Gear Solid is not as technological as you're imagining. It is a game, like any other. It uses no special magical powers inside the PS3, it uses a CPU, memory, a GPU and audio processors. All of which are available in every single PC and 360 around the world.
You're completely brainwashed if you believe that MGS4 can't run on the 360. It's one of the most empty, baron games of this generation. It looks nice, but it's a far cry (ha) away from games like Crysis (which - lets not forget - fits perfectly onto one DVD) and Gears of War 2 in terms of texture detail.
It's a technological fact that the 360 can handle Metal Gear Solid 4. It's no more advanced than Metal Gear Solid 2 or 3 are in terms of AI and gameplay mechanics - that is also a fact. If you understood about how hardware and software worked together, I'd be able to have a proper discussion with you about all the reasons as to why that game will run on the 360, but you're obviously just here to spark a fanboy bitch-slapping session, and I just can't be bothered with people like you.
you pathetic fanboy kid. go and do your homework. What you spout is embarrassing.
oh you're proberly already embarrassed about your spotty teenage face
Crysis is possible on a single DVD because a PC is not like a console. Crysis needs installing on the PC and uses the systems advanced reserves of RAM and space to keep things running smooth.
Oh dear god this is gonna be the best thread ever. Absolutely hilarious.
You do realise that MGS4 also installs to the PS3's hard drive, and also installs extra segments at the beginning of each chapter? Please tell me why that is any different to a PC.
Crysis is possible on a single DVD because DVD drives are simply faster than Blu-Ray. Because of this, the data does not need to be duplicated 10 times in order for the laser to keep up. That is the one and only reason MGS4 takes up that much space on a Blu-Ray disc. The one and only reason.
Crysis, or a game of similar graphics, wouldn't be possible on a console using a DVD. That suggestion of yours is quite laughable and reveals you to be a kid with no knowledge of what you are talking about.
Fail.
Do you even realise that Far Cry 2 uses what is basically a highly modified version of the Crysis engine? Do you also realise that this game is coming out on the Xbox 360? On one DVD?
Please research before trying to sound like you know what you're talking about - you're making this extremely easy for me to take the p**s!
And I'm still waiting for your reply to my actual question rather than your skewed version of reality.
It's a technological fact that the 360 can handle Metal Gear Solid 4. It's no more advanced than Metal Gear Solid 2 or 3 are in terms of AI and gameplay mechanics - that is also a fact
that is such a pathetic fanboy comment I think I'll show that to my mates and we can laugh about it!!!
I love that you call me a fanboy when I'm the one talking actual specifications and logic.
You're very transparent, hiding away from the actual questions that will prove you wrong, all the while talking rubbish about how you're going to laugh about me with your non-existant 'mates'. The only fanboy here is you, my friend.
Still waiting on that answer, by the way. I've got all day.
Yes I have. What it does is nothing special, when we're speaking about how it has to go about doing them.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying MGS4 is a bad game, not in the slightest. It's a fantastic game, with amazing production values and some very nice features - my whole argument here is with people believing their own hype.
MGS4 is simply a game that works on the same principles as every other game. There was no fairy-dust sprinkled on it that made it work in a completely different way.
It's a technological fact that the 360 can handle Metal Gear Solid 4. It's no more advanced than Metal Gear Solid 2 or 3 are in terms of AI and gameplay mechanics - that is also a fact
You just keep on proving my point dont you! And you're not even realising it.
Stillll waiting for that answer. You can keep skirting around it as long as you like, I'll still be here showing up your lack of knowledge on the subject you're so furiously defending.
You just keep on proving my point dont you! And you're not even realising it.
Stillll waiting for that answer. You can keep skirting around it as long as you like, I'll still be here showing up your lack of knowledge on the subject you're so furiously defending.
No I don't feel like it sorry.
I think instead we should laugh again at that gem you came out with earlier :
It's a technological fact that the 360 can handle Metal Gear Solid 4. It's no more advanced than Metal Gear Solid 2 or 3 are in terms of AI and gameplay mechanics - that is also a fact
The 360 didn't have this problem because it's basically a PC
This is a line that I see trotted out a lot, and frankly it's nonsense. It was true for the Xbox 1, but not the 360.
It uses the same API as developers use on Windows machines, i.e. DirectX, so it's still quite close to a PC Architecture.
Linux runs on X86, PowerPC, Cell, Sparc, ARM etc. hardware from one source tree. Different processor architectures aren't as different as you think, and three general purpose cores makes little difference considering most developers likely only code for 1.
The PS3 has a different architecture as the SPUs are not general purpose cores, they're attached to a general purpose one that does the command and control side of things.
A lot of PC developers barely port their games to OpenGL on PC, apart from Epic/iD they're all mostly DirectX only. The PS3 and Wii are both based around OpenGL rather than Microsoft's proprietary API, and that's just for the graphics side of things.
Crysis is possible on a single DVD because DVD drives are simply faster than Blu-Ray. Because of this, the data does not need to be duplicated 10 times in order for the laser to keep up. That is the one and only reason MGS4 takes up that much space on a Blu-Ray disc. The one and only reason.
That's not strictly true, DVD is variable speed, Blu-Ray has the same read speed no matter where the data is on the disk. So DVD is both faster and slower depending on what part of the disk the data is stored on.
You just keep on proving my point dont you! And you're not even realising it.
Stillll waiting for that answer. You can keep skirting around it as long as you like, I'll still be here showing up your lack of knowledge on the subject you're so furiously defending.
So,... you want him to listen to you??! when actually Sony told him that the PS3 can do games in 4D and 120fps good luck with that sire!!
It's a technological fact that the 360 can handle Metal Gear Solid 4. It's no more advanced than Metal Gear Solid 2 or 3 are in terms of AI and gameplay mechanics - that is also a fact
So,... you want him to listen to you??! when actually Sony told him that the PS3 can do games in 4D and 120fps good luck with that sire!!
My point exactly He doesnt have a leg to stand on, and taking the p**s out of him infront of everyone is satisfying me very much!
It's a boring Thursday evening, this is extremely entertaining!
Hey,you can always try out Geometry Wars2,what a gem of a game that is!!
I would, but I don't have the cash! I'm still waiting to get paid before I can get the Ninja Gaiden 2 Mission Mode DLC - I've been keeping myself busy with the weapon achievements... I can't believe I played 9 hours for 5 gamerpoints
But it's worth it simply to be challanged in the game again - it's amazing how different it is completing the game with just one weapon.. there are so many I didnt really use the first time around. Onto the Tonfa's now
GOW is flashier due to its sci-fi nature, which means the can basically make stuff up. MGS is more realistic and has to mimick real world stuff.
and if they "action" screens are really in-game, where are the crosshairs?!
LMAO, did you just use MGS and realistic in the same sentence? Ahhh yes, giant robot mecha and cyborg ninjas that can hurl lightning are so realistic. MGS is scifi as well, sorry to burst your bubble. Oh, what "real world stuff" does MGS mimic?
The way I see it is: The cell processor is like a new frontier in gaming development. Yes, it is more difficult and complicated than the 360 architecture, but is that only because it is new? Developers are like scientists in their pursuit of new boundaries, so I believe all great developers are keen to prove their worth with this new technology.
Things never need to be difficult. When it comes down to the games, the 360 has the exact same performance (give or take a little bit - it has more power for FSAA for example), and yet developers can knock out games extremely quickly for it.
There is absolutely no excuse for Sony creating such a difficult system. All developers that mention this say the same thing: The way they did multi-threading is extremely illogical.
another couple of years and the 360 wont even be close - it doesnt have any hidden tricks up its sleeve
You do realise that the whole point of 'hidden tricks' mean they're hidden, right? How you can say what you just said without cracking a smile is beyond me..
Simple doesnt mean better. Its new, so its gonna be complicated, Im happy its complicated, it jus shows how big the potential for it can be.
Someone pointed out that the Playstation 3 is similar to the Sega Saturn because both have programming environments that are very difficult...and that is very true.
It's also true that the difference between 1st generation games and 2nd generation games on the Sega Saturn was "night and day." However, that was mainly because the 1st generation of Sega Saturn games were such garbarge! All the pop-up in Daytona USA, and the flat-shaded polygons and low-resolution of Virtua Fighter 1. Simply adding texture mapping to Virtua Fighter 2 was responsible for the big difference.
As far as this relates to this generation of gaming, comparing the PS3 to the Xbox 360 and PC, we need to remember a few things:
1. Playstation 3 is now on its 3rd generation of software, and we still have not seen these "night and day" differences in software quality. In fact, the only "difference" in quality that we have seen is that 3rd generation PS3 games like Saints Row 2 will be released, whereas 1st generation PS3 games like Saints Row 1 (and many others) were cancelled and/or severely delayed.
2. Someone said that they thought the PS3 would eventually be far ahead of the Xbox 360 in terms of quality "because the Xbox 360 doesn't have any development tricks up its sleeve." But that is simply not true!
In fact, the Xbox 360 has development tricks up its sleeve that programmers have no idea how to take advantage of yet. One area is with the 10MB of custom eDRAM that the Xbox 360 has. PS3 has absolutely no answer for "eDRAM" technology, and neither do current PC graphics cards. In fact, only the new DirectX 11 technology will allow PC graphics cards to take advange of eDRAM technology that will be available on the newest PC graphics cards. Once that feature is take advantage of on PC over the next couple years, we will see it used on the Xbox 360, thus giving the Xbox 360 an even bigger advantage over the PS3.
This eDRAM technology is an excellent example showing how far ahead of its time the Xbox 360 is. Current it is 2008, and PC graphics cards don't have the ability ot use the eDRAM technology that the Xbox 360 uses. Microsoft knew that eDRAM technology was a wave of the future that would be taken advantage of with DirectX 11, so that's why they included it with the Xbox 360.
Another example of how the Xbox 360 is ahead of its time is the custom GPU that is much more advanced and much more powerful than the generic GPU in the PS3. The Xbox 360 GPU was the first GPU to ever use Unified Shader technology. PC graphics cards didn't see that technology until January of 2007 when Windows Vista was released. Once again, this proves how far the Xbox 360 was ahead of its time.
The PS3 uses an outdated GPU that is based on technology from Nvidia that had been in use for over four-years when it was released. The PS3 GPU is capable of displaying less than 60% as many polygons as the Xbox 360. That's not a good thing, because it prevents detail from appearing in the PS3 versions of multi-platform games.
One of the best examples of this is the way that Ridge Racer 6 on the Xbox 360 and Ridge Racer 7 on the PS3 have the same tracks, include tracks where beatufiul water exists under bridges. On the Xbox 360 the water is moving with waves that can clearly be seen. Each moving wave is made up of polygons coming from the Xbox 360 GPU.
But in in the PS3 version of Ridge Racer--which was released over a year later--the waves in the water don't move at all. The water and waves can be seen, but the waves never move in the PS3 version; the waves remain perfectly still in the same spot. The reason for this is because the PS3 doesn't have the ability to display as many polygons as the Xbox 360.
The superiority of the Xbox 360 GPU is the main reason why Xbox 360 games will always have a graphic edge over the Playstation 3, in all generations of programming.
Also, it's important to remember that the Xbox 360 has RAM advantages over the Playstation 3, too.
Xbox 360 and PS3 both have 512MB of RAM to use, but they used the RAM very differently. Xbox 360 has two fundamental RAM advantages over the PS3.
First, the Xbox 360 uses Unified RAM that can be used to help either the CPU or GPU. RAM is never ever wasted with the Xbox 360 Unified architecture. If the Xbox CPU or GPU needs 400MB of RAM or more, it can have access to 400MB of RAM or more at any time, whichever chip is not being used has access to the remaining amount of RAM. As a result, RAM is never wasted with the Xbox 360.
The same cannot be said for the Playstation 3. The PS3 RAM is Non-Unified; it is divided equally into CPU RAM and Video-RAM. The way the PS3 is designed the GPU can access both Video-RAM and CPU-RAM, but the CPU can never have access to Video-RAM. This is a major problem, because there are many situations when the CPU needs a lot more than 256MB of RAM. This is one of the main reason why Playstation 3 versions of games have frame-rate problems.
The other reason for frame-rate problems in PS3 games is because the "threaded" technology is very difficult to maintain "consistent" performance" The Cell CPU has only two "Threads" to "Send" instructions to six SPE sub-processors that use their thread to "Receive" instructions from the CPU. From the point of view of a programmer, this means the PS3 has two arms (CPU Threads) and is trying to juggle six balls (SPE subprocessors). It's nice to think about "potential" and what would happen with "years of practice." But in a real world, it is not possible to maintain consistent performance with that type of difficult task.
In these first three generations of software, there are even quite a few multi-platform games where the PS3 version runs at a "choppy" 30 frames per second, while the Xbox 360 version runs "smoothly" at 60 frames per second. What's worse in the first three generations of PS3 games is that in several games that run at 30 frames per second on the Xbox 360, there are times when the PS3 version will get choppy and dip below 20 frames per second, which causes "slowdown" and "screen-flicker" similar to an 8-bit videogame.
We need to be realistic, PS3 is definitely not going to see the big differences in quality that the Sega Saturn did, because PS3 already uses texture mapping technology and run in 720p resolution most of the time.
There are only three differences that PS3 games will see.
The first is that the framerates will become more steady so that they run at a "smooth" framerate instead of "choppy" framerate.
The second is that PS3 games will have more consistent resolution. For example, the Xbox 360 version of Grand Theft Auto 4 runs at 720p resolution, just as it is supposed to. However, the PS3 version of Grand Theft Auto 4 only runs at 640p. As developers get more support from Sony and become more familiar with the Playstation 3 development environment the inconsistency like this will become less common.
The third difference is that PS3 games won't get Cancelled and Delayed as much. In all honesty, this sort of thing is not disappearing anytime soon. Just consider the fact that EA recently cancelled Red Alert for the Playstation 3. EA LA blamed the PS3 development environment for that cancellation. That's why games like Command & Conquer 3, Battle for Midearth 2, Universe at War, Prey, and so many others are released for PC and Xbox 360, but not the Playstation 3.
The second advantage the Xbox 360 has over the Playstation 3 in the area of RAM is the simple fact that the Xbox 360 Operating System is designed so much more efficiently than the Operating System of the Playstation 3.
The Xbox 360 OS efficiently uses only 32MB of RAM. The PS3 OS wastes 96MB of RAM. That gives the Xbox 360 a 64MB advantage over the PS3. This gives the Xbox 360 480MB of RAM to use for any purpose, while the PS3 only hs 416MB of RAM to use.
I think it's also important to point out that the Playstation 3 and Sega Saturn share something else in common: Both of them were completely redesigned after seeing the competition. And both the PS3 and Sega Saturn ended up being difficult to program and very expensive as a result of the fast redesign.
Originally Sega wanted the Saturn to cost $199 and be a 2D game system. But the PS1 was going to cost $299 and be a 3D game system. When Sega saw that, they quickly redesigned the Saturn to be a 3D system, too. Unfortunately Sega didn't have time to custom design the system, so they were forced to use generic Hitachi SH-2 chips in a parallel processing environment that was very difficult and expensive to use.
The situation with the Playstation 3 is nearly identical. Sony originally wanted the PS3 to be based entirely on CPU technology and not use a GPU at all. Sony wanted to use two of the Cell CPU processors so that there were four "Threads" capable of "Sending" signals to the SPE subprocessors. This would have been like having four arms (CPU Threads) to easily juggle your favorite four balls with, and as time passed juggle more balls (up to 12 SPE subprocessors) if you became good enough. This version of the PS3 was only going to cost $399.
After Sony saw the Xbox 360 on display with its revolutionary GPU that was so far ahead of its time, and its multi-core CPU architecture that was also ahead of its time, Sony knew that the design of the Playstation 3 could not compete with the Xbox 360, which was also scheduled to cost $399.
As a result of being forced to redesign the Playstation 3 so quickly, Sony was not able to custom design the GPU. Sony was forced to use a generic GPU with technology that had been used in PC graphics cards for over four years. This GPU technology still needed to be modified to work with the PS3, which caused the price of the PS3 to skyrocket, which caused Sony to remove one of the two Cell CPU processors. Even with the loss of a Cell Processor the price of the PS3 was still much higher than expected due to the modifications that needed to be made.
The loss of one of the two Cell CPU processors is the main reason why the PS3 became so difficult to develop for. There are simply too many SPU subprocessors that need to "Receive" threaded signals, but not enough CPU Threads to send them. Unfortunately, Sony now has to live with that decision.
The way things ended up, the Xbox 360 is the exact opposite of the PS3. Xbox 360 uses a multi-core CPU technology that is similar what PCs now use. PCs in 2005 thought that it was great to have a dual-core CPU, yet the Xbox 360 had a tri-core CPU...Xbox 360 really was and still is (with the eDRAM) ahead of its time.
Each of the three Xbox 360 CPUs has two-threads, for a total fo six CPU threads to send instructions with. Yet the Xbox 360 doesn't use a difficult parallel processing environment like the PS3 and Sega Saturn did. Xbox 360 developers only need to worry about the functions of the CPU and GPU. It's almost as if the developers have six arms (CPU Threads), but only need to worry about juggling two balls (The CPU and GPU). Plus there is new eDRAM technology that is basically saying (if you start to drop the ball, I'll catch it). That is an incredibly easy development environment, which is why the legendary John Carmack has said that the Xbox 360 is the best development programming environment ever made.
It's also important to remember that the Xbox 360 has seen bigger jumps in performance each generation than the Playstation 3 has. Xbox 360 is actually the system that can claim a bigger difference in quality each generation. The Gamespot graphics comparison between Xbox 360 and PS3 proves this.
One of the reasons for this is the first generation of Xbox 360 games were using "Alpha" development kits that only allowed developers to use one of the three Xbox 360 CPU processors. The reason for this was because the launch of the Xbox 360 was rushed in order to release in time for Christmas of 2005. Playstation 3 launch games had access to Final versional of Development Kits for quite a while, because the PS3 launch was delayed for a year.
Each generation the Xbox 360 games have significantly improved. Gears of War was far superior to anything released before it in 2006. Gears of War 2 on the Xbox 360 even looks better than the high-end PC version of Gears of War.
From 2006-2008 Gamespot has had a Graphics Comparison between the PS3 and Xbox 360. Each year the Xbox 360 has easily beaten the Playstation 3. In 2006 there was no contest, the Xbox 360 won effortlessly. In 2007 the gap in quality had closed, and people were saying the same things that they are now, such as "I bet the gap in quality closes even more, and maybe the PS3 will have better games in 2008." But 2008 arrived, and when the comparison was made we saw that the gap in quality had widened in favor of the Xbox 360. This clearly showed that PS3 games had remained the same, but Xbox 360 games had gotten better.
In fact, when games like Orange Box and Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 were compared, we saw that the Xbox 360 is still "significantly" better than the Playstation 3...to the point that the Xbox 360 versions of those games looked like they were being run on a high-end version of a PC graphics card, while the PS3 version looked like it was being run on a low-end version of a PC graphics card. Look at those comparisons to see for yourself.
The comparisons show games in all resolutions, using equal connections, and they even show games that used Native 1080p resolutions on both systems, such as Virtua Tennis 3 and NBA Street Homecourt. That's why the Xbox 360 versions of games like Orange Box receive scores of 95% and win Game of the Year honors, but the PS3 versions are rated with scores of only 80% and are ignored.
The only area where the PS3 outperforms the Xbox 360 in terms of specifications is math FLOPS, which means Floatoing Point Operations Per Second. This is the reason why research facilities have bought hundreds of PS3 systems and linked them together in a parallel environment. This means when it comes to being a math calculator or running an Accounting software program, the PS3 has the Xbox 360 beaten by a 2:1 ratio. Unfortunately, math FLOPS have virtually no use in videogame graphics or sound.
The FLOPS technology could potentially be used to help with Artificial Intelligence, but it never is, because the PS3 has only one Cell CPU. This means the developers have only two Threads to Send instructions to SPE subprocessors with. Developers are forced to choose whether or not they use a subproccesor that provides Graphics, or do they choose to use a subprocessor dedicated to Artificial Inelligence. This is the reason why Artificial Intelligence is so bad in so many PS3 games.
I realize that a lot of people seem to think that as developers gain experience programming in the parallel processing environment of the PS3, then they will become more familiar with it and figure out newer and better ways to use it. This is 100% true...
Unfortunately for Sony, once a developer gains experience like that working in a parellel processing environment, it can be written on a resume. Once a developer can write "experience working in a parallel processing envrionment" on his/her resume, the developer will definitely want to get a high-paying job working for a company like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, NASA, and other military and science facilities. The reason for this is because the videogame industry does not pay employees nearly as much as miltary and government institutions do.
This is one of the main reasons why Sony is stuck in a very deep hole with the Playstation 3. Even if developers do gain experience in the dreaded parallel processing environment, they won't be working on the PS3 for long, because they will be helping NASA develop shuttle simulations and helping Lockheed Martin develop high-end flight simulations. Very few developers are going to remain loyal to Sony for the heck of it. Providing more income for the family and working in a legendary environment like NASA or Lockheed Martin represent opportunities that programmers will take advantage of almost every time.
That's bad news for Sony, because it means very few PS3 games will take advantage of the experience most employees gain.
Playstation 3 has some major problems that still exist. Playstation 3 has been available for nearly two years, and it still has zero games available in several genres.
For example, Playstation 3 has zero games available in the Real-Time Strategy genre that is gaining so much popularity on the Xbox 360 and PC. Great games like Red Alert, Universe at War, Command & Conquer 3, Battle for Midearth 2, and so many others are released only for Xbox 360 and PC, but not for PS3. Developers realize that it is much easier, much less time consuming, and much less expensive to develop games for the PC and Xbox 360 than it is for the Playstation 3. When you consider that the market for the PC and Xbox 360 is so much larger than the PS3, that is another factor why third-party companies simply aren't interested in releasing exclusive games for the Playstation 3.
Take Square Enix for instance. At this point in time, if you like Square Enix games, the system you need to own is the Xbox 360. Final Fantasy games are released for both PS3 and Xbox 360. However, when developers experiment with new game technology they want to do it where there is little financial risk. That's why a new game like Infinite Undiscover is released exclusively for Xbox 360. Star Ocean 4: The Last Hope will also be released only for the Xbox 360. Even The Last Remnant is going to be released as a timed-exclusive for the Xbox 360. No doubt about it, if you like games from Square Enix, the Xbox 360 is the system you need to have.
It's like this with more and more companies all the time. The PC game called Left 4 Dead won Game of the Show at E3, and it is being released for Xbox 360, but not the Playstation 3.
Even Sony's own first-party games like Gran Turismo 5 are suffering from major delays. Sony recently said that Gran Turismo 5 will not be seen until sometime in 2010!
The developer of God of War 3 had previously said that if he were to start development at that instant, the game would not be ready until at least late 2009...Unfortunately, he didn't start working on it until over a year later! God of War 3 has no release date, and that means we probably won't see it until 2011!
I hope all this information has helped. But the PS3 simply doesn't have the hardware resources to see some sort of big jump in quality that will make it better than the Xbox 360 and PC...that just isn't possible. In terms of GPU technology, RAM, and Polygon power, the Playstation 3 is significantly weaker than the Xbox 360. This is the reason why PS3 games have slower framerates, lower resolution, and less polygon detail.
It's late, I am tired, I read you post and feel compelled to point out how inaccurate some of the information you have written in your post is. I had thought at first you were a developer, but it is clear you are not
All the advances in the home computing market are utilised in Business first, including multiple core processers, cells etc. When they become cost effective for the mass market they are rolled out to the mass market. I am an IT Project Manager for an Investment Bank, have been for the last 9 years, I have been implementing servers with architectures similar to the CPUs and GPUs of the Xbox and PS3 for some years now.
Very briefly Unified RAM has its advantages, for sure, the problem with it is you frequently get contention between the CPU and GPU for RAM, it requires a coding overhead to manage this. Your stats that the XBox GPU require 400MG out of 512MG is dubious, in fact untenable. That would mean the XBox's multicore CPU would have to run off 112MB of RAM, you would struggle to run a single core, Pentium 2 processor off 112BM of RAM
In terms of multi threading in code, it is a well established skill, if you logon to internet banking, whatever bank you are with, your transactions will be channelled across multiple threads. Not a simple skill, perhaps new to gaming but relatively easy to source those skills in the Business world, I can put you in touch with at least 4 consultancies who will offer you developersbwith these skills, none of whom work for NASA...quite an exageration in terms of the value of such skills
On a lighter note, I possess both consoles, XBox and PS3, enjoys games on both, don't really care for either companies. I have weekly meetings with Microsoft at work because of their shabby, bug ridden code. In terms of Sony, apart from PS3 they don't make any products worth buying in a business context, minor players, Microsoft are street ahead of them in that respect.
In terms of the point, I would say its all very well having a powerful CPU but if you only have 512MB of RAM you will never realise its full potential. Its not about a single component but the architecture as a whole. When you consider PCs manufactured with 2GB - 4GB of RAM as standard just to run Vista you can must conclude both consoles are looking light on RAM
If you want high end gaming, get a PC, if you want a range of software and ease of use, get a console. In terms of which one, there really isn't much in it between XBox and PS3, just enjoy the experience
Because 99% of the time, not one of you even has a clue about what goes on inside the box you wasted £300+ on. Both systems are so close you'd wet your pants if you even understood.
Can you stop being a complete snooker cue? Maybe just for one day? I can't believe someone actually made you a moderator, after reading the kind of inane, babbling, fanboyish s**t that comes out of your mouth.
Because 99% of the time, not one of you even has a clue about what goes on inside the box you wasted £300+ on. Both systems are so close you'd wet your pants if you even understood.
Can you stop being a complete snooker cue? Maybe just for one day? I can't believe someone actually made you a moderator, after reading the kind of inane, babbling, fanboyish s**t that comes out of your mouth.
How is saying that both systems are so close fanboyish in any way?
Yes I have. What it does is nothing special, when we're speaking about how it has to go about doing them.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying MGS4 is a bad game, not in the slightest. It's a fantastic game, with amazing production values and some very nice features - my whole argument here is with people believing their own hype.
MGS4 is simply a game that works on the same principles as every other game. There was no fairy-dust sprinkled on it that made it work in a completely different way.
did you complete it or just play it for a few minutes?
But I'm still going to say how wrong you are about the other stuff. Since when were IGN the authority on all things factual? What they say is an opinion. Just because they say 'best graphics on xxx' doesnt mean it's true. You're surely not using that as a basis for your argument?
I've said it before and I will say it again:
Metal Gear Solid 4's textures are plain, flat and dull in comparison to Gears of War
I would love to see you try and prove me wrong with actual images. I dont care about your words and how you try to twist everything, I want you to actually go out and find screenshots of both games that show MGS4 with clearer, crisper textures that have more detail than GoW (1 or 2) - it's simlpy not possible. Because they dont exist.
I think you've shot yourself in the foot there. You say that IGN's views are just an opinion. Yet you talk like your opinion is fact.
MGS and GoW have 2 completely different art styles. Why are you guys even trying to compare them? In my eyes it's like trying to compare the graphics of Eternal Sonata and FFXIII. I mean, who really gives a s**t?
If graphics are the only things that impress you guys then I feel real sorry for you.
The Wii is selling extremely well. Now this may be that it's appealing more to casual gamers, but they obviously don't care about the graphics. And nor do I (and I've been gaming since the Speccy days).
It's late, I am tired, I read you post and feel compelled to point out how inaccurate some of the information you have written in your post is. I had thought at first you were a developer, but it is clear you are not
All the advances in the home computing market are utilised in Business first, including multiple core processers, cells etc. When they become cost effective for the mass market they are rolled out to the mass market. I am an IT Project Manager for an Investment Bank, have been for the last 9 years, I have been implementing servers with architectures similar to the CPUs and GPUs of the Xbox and PS3 for some years now.
Very briefly Unified RAM has its advantages, for sure, the problem with it is you frequently get contention between the CPU and GPU for RAM, it requires a coding overhead to manage this. Your stats that the XBox GPU require 400MG out of 512MG is dubious, in fact untenable. That would mean the XBox's multicore CPU would have to run off 112MB of RAM, you would struggle to run a single core, Pentium 2 processor off 112BM of RAM
In terms of multi threading in code, it is a well established skill, if you logon to internet banking, whatever bank you are with, your transactions will be channelled across multiple threads. Not a simple skill, perhaps new to gaming but relatively easy to source those skills in the Business world, I can put you in touch with at least 4 consultancies who will offer you developersbwith these skills, none of whom work for NASA...quite an exageration in terms of the value of such skills
On a lighter note, I possess both consoles, XBox and PS3, enjoys games on both, don't really care for either companies. I have weekly meetings with Microsoft at work because of their shabby, bug ridden code. In terms of Sony, apart from PS3 they don't make any products worth buying in a business context, minor players, Microsoft are street ahead of them in that respect.
In terms of the point, I would say its all very well having a powerful CPU but if you only have 512MB of RAM you will never realise its full potential. Its not about a single component but the architecture as a whole. When you consider PCs manufactured with 2GB - 4GB of RAM as standard just to run Vista you can must conclude both consoles are looking light on RAM
If you want high end gaming, get a PC, if you want a range of software and ease of use, get a console. In terms of which one, there really isn't much in it between XBox and PS3, just enjoy the experience
if games devs were to learn or use skills from internet banking god help us all. internet banking sites are often slow and badly designed. besides, getting the most out of a console for games will be harder due to the fact that they push hardware to the limits where as internet sites do not, at least locally. i would stick my neck out and say someone like john carmack of ID is far more highly skilled at programming than anyone in the business software world, and i should know as i work in it!
the fact of the matter is that the CELL processor wasn't designed for games and isn't a very good general purpose processor. Intel and AMD make powerful general purpose processors that use brute force to do lots of calculations and as a result are better for games. the 360 is also general purpose but kind limited in relation to PC processors but has only one configuration so is easily optimised compared to PC's.
the PS3 on the other hand is handicapped by a processor designed to do lots of simple tasks very quickly, which is good for TV's and bluray players but not so good for games where the content is variable. how much further the ps3 can go depends on the other hardware it uses too such as the graphics chip, bandwidth and memory speed, and to be honest it is never going to be anywhere near current PC's so i cant see a big jump at all.
devs would prefer a simple system as good results are easily achievable in a short time frame and can then be optimised. ps3 games take longer and therefore cost more or some work is skipped like optimisation maybe? i cant help but feel the CELL was used to enable the PS3 good bluray playback capability, but then again i could just be cynical.
I would disagree a bit here. Im developing for the CELL processor from my PhD. The CELL processor is designed for multimedia, general purpose, scientific and game graphics as well, yes, it is difficult to program but not impossible. Remember its an asynchronous processor, it requires two compilers, the SPUs are very powerful engines, these vector engines are perfect for graphics, the hardest part or should i say programming, is the management of resources and concurrency issues (there other issues but i need to explore them first).
Im not a game developer, i write mathematic, high performance scientific computing apps, im developing a simple physics engine, personally, i prefer the CELL than to Intels, why, i can program the CELL chip more closely to the underlying architecture.
Ok im going off the topic here, so to finish off, developers just need time and better tools.
No one ever points out when confronted with the supposed realistic virtues of MGS4 that, plainly and simply, you can carry around a barrel in your trousers. This barrel is something that, from time to time, you require to hide yourself in, yet you can store in in a pocket.
No one else think that this is strange? Has this form of reality found a way of bending time and space to allow this? Not that I reallly care as it is a game, and I'd rather my games not be hindered by the basic laws of the universe as that would be a little tiresome, still, some food for thought...
MGS4 easily rivals GOW graphically, and beats it in my opinion, the way the cut scenes blend together with in-game is astonishing. and gameplay wise, MGS kicks it in the balls.
I have both GOW and MGS4, and I'm still trying to find the gameplay in the latter!!!
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Hey,you can always try out Geometry Wars2,what a gem of a game that is!! 
