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

Forums - Gaming - Carmack: "PS3 Better Than Anything... Except 360"

DonFerrari on 17 March 2011
youarebadatgames said:
DonFerrari said:

For this guys would be better have and arcade version or use a super computer with 1ms of Lag... the kind of justification is fantastic also don't you think....

while the lag between PS3 to Xbox is 25% greater from Xbox to a super computer is 6600%... really that must be really important


Arcade cabs of SFIV in Japan are modified PCs, but the US national competition EVO went console because arcades are dead here.  Believe it or not, input lag matters at every step because it adds up from console to TV.  They use PS3s at EVO because it was easier to find lagless PS2->PS3 adapters a long time ago, but 360 more closely matches the arcade version.


And if they want less Lag they shall assembly a proper arcade or computer... And I believe arcade is dead there, in Brazil in Malls all machines have at least 10 years i would say...

And I bet the lag matters in the game (even more after seeing things like these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pemlKXKQXM ) but in a gamers comparision they are the same... and if you want to take of the lag using a Xbox isn't the better solutions, it would just be the cheapier because PC would be even better...

Even though in the end this small differences don't detract from our experience in general.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
mantlepiecek on 17 March 2011
youarebadatgames said:
mantlepiecek said:

And yet, the PS3 version is what is used in tournaments and most of the better players are on the PS3...

lol.


Wrong again, Japanese players like Daigo plays on Live when he's not at the arcade, but I believe he has both.

Wrong again?

lmao. First of all, a person's preference, does not equal reallity. PS3 version is used in tournaments and that is a fact. If the difference was so bothering, why would they use the PS3 version again?

Yeah, because its not. All the people who are playing on the PS3 version have a level playing field so its not like its unfair or something.

A millisecond is like 1/1000 of a second. 17 times that is 17/1000 second which is the difference between the PS3 and 360 versions.

If that matters, then you are a noob.



Squilliam on 17 March 2011

WTF are ya'll talking about? Here have a random picture.



Tease.

reviniente on 17 March 2011

For your consideration, the best-selling game (non-bundled, of course) of all time runs best on the paltry X360. From digitalfoundry:

For those with both consoles, the choice of where you spend the majority of your online gaming time must be factored into any purchasing decision - as was the case with Modern Warfare 2 before it. However, from a technical perspective, there's little doubt that the Xbox 360 offers the better experience: superior image definition, and a pleasingly smoother run of play.

In many ways, the core experience of playing a COD title is defined by that 60FPS target frame-rate and the advantages that brings. Neither version of the game sustains it, but the Xbox 360 game comes closest and thus it just feels like the more playable, satisfying game. Factor in the higher resolution and what feels like a bit more polish, and it's clearly the pick of the two HD console releases.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-black-ops-faceoff



youarebadatgames on 17 March 2011
mantlepiecek said:

Wrong again?

lmao. First of all, a person's preference, does not equal reallity. PS3 version is used in tournaments and that is a fact. If the difference was so bothering, why would they use the PS3 version again?

Yeah, because its not. All the people who are playing on the PS3 version have a level playing field so its not like its unfair or something.

A millisecond is like 1/1000 of a second. 17 times that is 17/1000 second which is the difference between the PS3 and 360 versions.

If that matters, then you are a noob.


Some regionals and locals tend to run on 360s, US nationals on PS3 (Sony sponsored the tourney early on, easier controller hotswap), and then added to that the Japanese players are on arcade.  It does throw off timing when switching between the two.  EVO US is PS3, EVO Japan and UK are 360s.

And yes, it does matter, otherwise people including a lot of SF pros wouldn't be discussing it so much.



Around the Network
Squilliam on 17 March 2011
reviniente said:

For your consideration, the best-selling game of all time runs best on the paltry X360. From digitalfoundry:

Obviously due to idiots and swines who are unable to comprehend basic game development.



Tease.

Booh! on 17 March 2011
reviniente said:

For your consideration, the best-selling game (non-bundled, of course) of all time runs best on the paltry X360. From digitalfoundry:

For those with both consoles, the choice of where you spend the majority of your online gaming time must be factored into any purchasing decision - as was the case with Modern Warfare 2 before it. However, from a technical perspective, there's little doubt that the Xbox 360 offers the better experience: superior image definition, and a pleasingly smoother run of play.

In many ways, the core experience of playing a COD title is defined by that 60FPS target frame-rate and the advantages that brings. Neither version of the game sustains it, but the Xbox 360 game comes closest and thus it just feels like the more playable, satisfying game. Factor in the higher resolution and what feels like a bit more polish, and it's clearly the pick of the two HD console releases.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-black-ops-faceoff


Pokemon of War edition?



DonFerrari on 17 March 2011
Booh! said:
reviniente said:

For your consideration, the best-selling game (non-bundled, of course) of all time runs best on the paltry X360. From digitalfoundry:

For those with both consoles, the choice of where you spend the majority of your online gaming time must be factored into any purchasing decision - as was the case with Modern Warfare 2 before it. However, from a technical perspective, there's little doubt that the Xbox 360 offers the better experience: superior image definition, and a pleasingly smoother run of play.

In many ways, the core experience of playing a COD title is defined by that 60FPS target frame-rate and the advantages that brings. Neither version of the game sustains it, but the Xbox 360 game comes closest and thus it just feels like the more playable, satisfying game. Factor in the higher resolution and what feels like a bit more polish, and it's clearly the pick of the two HD console releases.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-black-ops-faceoff


Pokemon of War edition?


No, it's a franchise that no matter how repetitive and lame people will keep buying.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Scoobes on 17 March 2011
mendozahotness said:
mantlepiecek said:

And? Reliablity matters a lot in future so it does matter in future-proofing. If my system fails every year that's hardly called future-proof. Oh and it did fail(for me at least) every year,

That's nice. I'd sooner have a console that might break that can run said games properly, then a console that never breaks and struggles to run games as well as the oldest hardware.

mantlepiecek said:

Carmack himself has said it that the HDD gives an advantage to the PS3, and the blu-ray, seriously what future-proof are you talking about in relation to the 360? It uses old DVD media which has started to show its age with Dead Space 2 and Mass Effect 2 already, even Castlevania has 2 Discs.

I niticed Resident Evil 4 on Gamecube had 2 discs and the PS2 version only had one, but still had inferior graphics. 360 games could be on 10 discs and it wouldn't matter, as long as the graphics are better.

Hell PS3 had an extra year of development for Mass Effect 2 and they still had to take out the AA and motion blur to get the game running as well as the oldest hardware.

mantlepiecek said:

No one buys older games, and the small quantity that do, do not matter. There are more people now who have a PC that can run GTA 4 properly then people who do have a 360 that can run GTA 4 properly along with an HDTV. With time, more people start buying new PCs and end up getting temporary gaming PCs. So your so called "future proof" 360 didn't ever exist.

Sorry, unless they bought their PCS in November 2005, they don't count.

mantlepiecek said:

And now that its reliablity is restored, the multiplats quality on the PS3 is also getting better (the irony).

What you find it ironic that the newest hardware this generation is running the utmost worst version of the software?
Xbox software has enjoyed this level of polish for years.

mantlepiecek said:

The only exception is Bulletstorm.  Even Mass effect 2 is the same on both and it uses unreal engine as well.

And Crysis 2 and Test Drive Unlimited 2 and Fight Night Champions and Marvel Vs Capcom 3, that's just the last 2 months, brin in 2010 and you got Mafia 2, GTA:EFLC, RDR, Bayonetta, Dead Rising, BLOPS..IT'S ENDLESS

mantlepiecek said:

Even Mass effect 2 is the same on both and it uses unreal engine as well.

Nope, it has no AA or motion blur on PS3...and its a year late.

 

 

 

You may want to go back and play Mass Effect 2 again on the 360.... or the PS3 or even on PC. Let me give you a clue: Not a single version has anti-aliasing; they all use clever HDR to mask the jaggies. If you want to play Mass Effect 2 with anti-aliasing then you have to manually force it on PC (the game doesn't give you the option to turn AA on).

Also, you completely missed the point with the HDD. Reading from a HDD is much faster than any optical format and this means better streaming and less compression artifacts. Your comparison of PS2 and Gamecube versions of RE4 doesn't work because unlike PS2 and Gamecube (where Gamecube was far more capable and powerful), PS3 and 360 are similar in terms of power and performance.




Get your Portable ID!

slowmo on 17 March 2011
goforgold said:
slowmo said:
goforgold said:
slowmo said:
goforgold said:
hikaruchan said:
goforgold said:
slowmo said:
CGI-Quality said:

Man, I read this on N4G and was hoping nobody posted it here (because I know what a thread like this can end up like), but it is just his opinion (and he means it in terms of efficiency, not power). In fact, he's admitted that the PS3 has "more peak power" than the 360, but that in the end, the 360 will have it's power better exploited. Nothing many other devs haven't already said.


Strange how that only ever seems to really become an issue when it's the 360 being lauded by a developer and not the PS3 though isn't it.  He also was pretty exact on his reasoning, he thinks the 360 is the better console for everything except storage in terms of the work he is doing.  Right or wrong, it's his opinion and doesn't make it any less valid than the Sony developers who frequently quote opinion as fact yet get worshipped so frequently on here.  I guess my point is, nothing should be prevented from posting just because some of the userbase cannot behave (unless of course it is deliberately misleading/false).

I'm quite happy to admit I think the PS3 is the better hardware by the way, I just prefer the 360 userbase and experience for my gaming needs, plus being a FPS fan doesn't hurt as a 360 gamer.

no he doesn't.....


???

having architecture closer to the PC making it easier to developer for =/= better than the ps3 in every way except storage, and that's not an opinion.

John knows this because it's what he said, don't know what you guys are reading.

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/ReclusiveSpirit/john-carmack-unplugged-xbox-360-gt-ps3-98107.phtml

It's an old interview and was posted earlier in the thread but it seems his opinion hasn't changed much.  Fair enough though if you don't see how a developer would prefer the 360 as a devleopment environment.  It has almost equivalent power but more flexibility, that's pretty important to a lot of developers.

exactly, nothing more really needs to be said

he prefers the 360 because of it's ease in development which is totally acceptable, you twisted it into he thinks the 360 is better than the ps3 hardware wise which is incorrect and that's just a fact.

No I stated it was the better console in every way besides Storage for the work he was doing.  That isn't the same as saying the 360 is the better console in his opinion as there is two distinct differences there.  One would be a personal opinion the other is his professional opinion in terms of development.  I understand given my pro 360 bias why you might think I meant that though.

easier is the word your looking for, better implies some sort of superiority, and the is 360 isn't superior to the ps3 in any way EXCEPT it's ease to develop for, even if the differences are minor

I and many other people happen to disagree with that last sentence, but you're entitled to your opinion.