By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Square-Enix: Trouble Fitting FFXIV On PS3

AkibaFan said:
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

but cell dusn't give more memory?


No. Cell is just the CPU. Which is useless without memory. You could have a CPU 100 times more powerful than the Cell, but if it had the same memory it would be totally pointless. 

Think of a place where mail is sorted. 

CPU = Sorting office

Ram = Postboxes. 

The sorting office ( CPU ) cannot do anything unless it recieves letters ( information ) from the postboxes ( Ram ). 

Thats why when building a PC a CPU isnt the most integral part. Of course it's very important for efficiency. But then a great CPU is useless without a good ram space and speed.



Around the Network
Solid_Snake4RD said:
KillerMan said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
KillerMan said:
Darc Requiem said:

RAM is always an achilles heel for consoles. While PCs always out pace consoles in CPU and GPU power, PC games have to account for the fact that not everyone PC owner is going to have the latest hardware. This helps consoles platforms because while PC devs have to account for the lowest common denominator, console devs are always pushing to get the most of hardware.

RAM is another story. Consoles tend to have a brief hardware power advantage at launch but they still are at disadvantage in RAM. Consoles usually have faster RAM at launch and combined with larger overhead of PCs that helps them initially. However PC's have far more RAM. When bought my launch 360 in 2005, my desktop had 2GB of RAM and GPU had 256MB of VRAM.

Honestly consoles makers need to try to squeeze as much RAM into there consoles at launch as possible. I think if Sony would have ditched the XDR RAM in order to have more total RAM it would have been far more advantageous. Having more RAM than the 360 would made it far more difficult for developers to switch projects from PS3 to 360. It also would have made it easier for them to use Blu-Ray's storage advantage for better textures.


I have also wondered this especially as Sony launched PS3 one year later. They could have easily gone with 1gb of normal RAM and nowadays production costs would be maybe couple of dollars more than they are now with current PS3 but in exchange PS3 would have real graphical advantage over X360. With this pretty many HD console buyers would have probably chosen PS3 instead of X360.

it would have lost more money on PS3

and HD consoles console buyers still wouldn't have bought PS3 instead of 360 as the price would have been more like ir was as it is

Yes but with more RAM PS3's value in eyes of normal customer would have risen a lot more compared to production costs because PS3 would have real graphical advantage over X360.High price would have been better justified and this would have led more people to choose PS3 over X360.

a normal consumer doesn't know shit about RAM and all

we see that alot like iPHONE outselling its superior competitors

Now it cost a lot more than X360 but the games look about the same.

not really the exclusive games look alot better

Really?

Step back. In all honesty there is not a great deal between Alan Wake and any PS3 exclusive. Any advantages anywhere arent huge like some people make out.

Rage for example had hugely impressed graphically, and most media sound shocked that it was running on 360. In all reality I'm surprised they are shocked. 

Almost all First party 360 games have split screen campaign either 2 or 4 players. Favouring gameplay, and sacrificing graphics. Technically the 360 has been fine and right up there. People like to dismiss games like Reach or Halo 3.  But forget the huge amount of onscreen characters as well as individual AI. Or even that it runs smooth with 4 player splitscreen. Although visually things like textures, effects etc arent top of the gen it's obvious where the power has been used and ram.



selnor said:

Really?

yes really really

Step back. In all honesty there is not a great deal between Alan Wake and any PS3 exclusive.

again you are going back to ur old personality of thinking that all 360 games are the best of grapics out there

Uncharted 2,GOW3 have alot of gap between them and Alan Wake.

Any advantages anywhere arent huge like some people make out.

those people are blind then

also you have got to be a casual gamer than doesn't look at detail for that to happen

and the darkness help alot in hiding the Alan Wake differences

Rage for example had hugely impressed graphically, and most media sound shocked that it was running on 360. In all reality I'm surprised they are shocked. 

they were shocked for all the versions not just 360.alot had to do with the backgrounds shown in the game

Almost all First party 360 games have split screen campaign either 2 or 4 players. Favouring gameplay, and sacrificing graphics.

so they don't do their job for the single campaign???????????????

Technically the 360 has been fine and right up there.

yes but it isn't near the PS3 exclusives

People like to dismiss games like Reach or Halo 3. But forget the huge amount of onscreen characters as well as individual AI.Or even that it runs smooth with 4 player splitscreen.

who the hell did dismiss them?????????



Like always, people assume technology drives the look of games. Its more efficient to use what you have better by creating better artwork than it is to simply try to drive more polygons in a dumb fashion. If games were developed without the artistic flair developed in the industry they would all look like arse.

Sumary for those who don't want to read:

Art = make more with less.

Programming = Make less into slightly more than less.

A true artist can do more with 5,000 polygons than an amatuer can do with 50,000.



WilliamWatts said:

Like always, people assume technology drives the look of games. Its more efficient to use what you have better by creating better artwork than it is to simply try to drive more polygons in a dumb fashion. If games were developed without the artistic flair developed in the industry they would all look like arse.

Sumary for those who don't want to read:

Art = make more with less.

Programming = Make less into slightly more than less.

A true artist can do more with 5,000 polygons than an amatuer can do with 50,000.


and what does this mean?



Around the Network
Solid_Snake4RD said:
selnor said:

Really?

yes really really

Step back. In all honesty there is not a great deal between Alan Wake and any PS3 exclusive.

again you are going back to ur old personality of thinking that all 360 games are the best of grapics out there

Uncharted 2,GOW3 have alot of gap between them and Alan Wake.

Any advantages anywhere arent huge like some people make out.

those people are blind then

also you have got to be a casual gamer than doesn't look at detail for that to happen

and the darkness help alot in hiding the Alan Wake differences

Rage for example had hugely impressed graphically, and most media sound shocked that it was running on 360. In all reality I'm surprised they are shocked. 

they were shocked for all the versions not just 360.alot had to do with the backgrounds shown in the game

Almost all First party 360 games have split screen campaign either 2 or 4 players. Favouring gameplay, and sacrificing graphics.

so they don't do their job for the single campaign???????????????

Technically the 360 has been fine and right up there.

yes but it isn't near the PS3 exclusives

People like to dismiss games like Reach or Halo 3. But forget the huge amount of onscreen characters as well as individual AI.Or even that it runs smooth with 4 player splitscreen.

who the hell did dismiss them?????????


The stuff bout Alan Wake is pointless to debate. Theres paperthin between top 360 and PS3 games graphically.

The single player suffers on a fair bit graphically when splitscreen is fully optimized with the games. It's not just a case of dropping textures etc. 

Halo 3 still does the same enemies onscreen with 4 player with no noticeable graphical changes an nio framerate drops. Obviosuly there is allowances, but the actual cingle player engine is already designed with this in mind. If these games were solely 1 player campaign, there would have been more emphasis on graphics.

As for the dismissing? 

Loads of people do. If a game doesnt win best visuals, it's considered a failiure on here. Yet forget that technically it's just as impressive because it destroys the top graphical games in areas like amoumt onscreen. Draw distance, Amount of individual AI etc. 

People are a little blinded at what power is in a console.



selnor said:

The stuff bout Alan Wake is pointless to debate.

then why even bring it up

Theres paperthin between top 360 and PS3 games graphically.

no its not.

The single player suffers on a fair bit graphically when splitscreen is fully optimized with the games. It's not just a case of dropping textures etc. 

so just because they have splitscreen which nobody plays they don't make a good single player,you are out of excuses

Halo 3 still does the same enemies onscreen with 4 player with no noticeable graphical changes an nio framerate drops.

they better start doing it on one

Obviosuly there is allowances, but the actual cingle player engine is already designed with this in mind. If these games were solely 1 player campaign, there would have been more emphasis on graphics.

many of the games are and still they don't succeed

As for the dismissing? 

Loads of people do. If a game doesnt win best visuals, it's considered a failiure on here.

not really.infamous,halo,Nsmbwii aren't considered failures

Yet forget that technically it's just as impressive because it destroys the top graphical games in areas like amoumt onscreen. Draw distance, Amount of individual AI etc. 

how does it destroy it?

People are a little blinded at what power is in a console.

your comments in the past week make you seem blinded.you had learnt but you have again gone back.





Solid_Snake4RD said:
selnor said:

The stuff bout Alan Wake is pointless to debate.

then why even bring it up

Theres paperthin between top 360 and PS3 games graphically.

no its not.

The single player suffers on a fair bit graphically when splitscreen is fully optimized with the games. It's not just a case of dropping textures etc. 

so just because they have splitscreen which nobody plays they don't make a good single player,you are out of excuses

Halo 3 still does the same enemies onscreen with 4 player with no noticeable graphical changes an nio framerate drops.

they better start doing it on one

Obviosuly there is allowances, but the actual cingle player engine is already designed with this in mind. If these games were solely 1 player campaign, there would have been more emphasis on graphics.

many of the games are and still they don't succeed

As for the dismissing? 

Loads of people do. If a game doesnt win best visuals, it's considered a failiure on here.

not really.infamous,halo,Nsmbwii aren't considered failures

Yet forget that technically it's just as impressive because it destroys the top graphical games in areas like amoumt onscreen. Draw distance, Amount of individual AI etc. 

how does it destroy it? 

People are a little blinded at what power is in a console.

your comments in the past week make you seem blinded.you had learnt but you have again gone back.



Ive not gone back to anything.

Ive not said x 360 game is best graphics ever.

regardless of the fact you say the top games are miles apart. I disagree. After seeing them all ( except GT5 so far ) I can say there isnt a huge difference between the visuals of Alan Wake, ME2, U2, GOW3. They excel at different things. Agree that AW characters are not as great as other games. But the draw distance is the best out ( Episode 3 is rediculous ). The lighitng is top of the gen, and the whether effects are awesome. 

And just to let you know. Alot of xbox players play splitscreen campaigns. Bungie and Epic would be bombarded by the fans if they decided not to include it and choose to concentrate all efforts on a single player graphical show. Do you know how may lan parties Halo and Gears have? 

The only real flagship titles which have gone for graphics on a single experience front are Alan Wake and Forza 3. The rest that are considered technically impressive studios for graphics etc have all had coop.

Gameplay sells on 360 with friends.



selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

The problem is more that you answered his question with misinformation, not truth. The Cell can only use the 256MB of XDR RAM, true; but the GPU can use the 256MB of GDDR3 and the 256MB of XDR RAM.

If we include the current known OS footprint the GPU has access to 480MB RAM in total. In your earlier post you said the GPU could only access 256MB RAM which is false.

OT: I figured there would be optimisation problems after running the FFXIV stress test on my PC. I didn't see how the PS3 would be able to cope. My PC can produce somewhat higher than PS3 visuals and on higher settings struggled to keep pace. RAM would be the most obvious issue, but this is what console development is all about especially 4 yrs in.



selnor said:

Ive not gone back to anything.

Ive not said x 360 game is best graphics ever.

but you are getting back to the statement that there is not much difference between Uncharted's and Aln Wake's

regardless of the fact you say the top games are miles apart. I disagree.

not miles but a significant difference

After seeing them all ( except GT5 so far ) I can say there isnt a huge difference between the visuals of Alan Wake, ME2, U2, GOW3.

don't even put Alan Wake in the same league as U2,GOW3

ME2 is good but still not there

They excel at different things. Agree that AW characters are not as great as other games. But the draw distance is the best out ( Episode 3 is rediculous ). The lighitng is top of the gen, and the whether effects are awesome. 

the lighting is one of the reasons you may think Alan Wake is good graphics game but overall its not.also the darkness helps it hide its flaws

And just to let you know. Alot of xbox players play splitscreen campaigns.

yes but its not their top priority by far.

online multiplayer is

Bungie and Epic would be bombarded by the fans if they decided not to include it and choose to concentrate all efforts on a single player graphical show.

still minimum and how does it stop them from making the single player campaign better

Do you know how may lan parties Halo and Gears have? 

do you,do you do a survey?

yes they happen but its just when people have friends over and just for fun but it is not the normal play

The only real flagship titles which have gone for graphics on a single experience front are Alan Wake and Forza 3. The rest that are considered technically impressive studios for graphics etc have all had coop.

Gameplay sells on 360 with friends.

gameplay sells on other platforms too but they have graphics too