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

Forums - Nintendo - Could MK8, Bayo2 and X run on a PS3[60]

 

could they?

yes 280 32.52%
 
no 341 39.61%
 
maybe one of them could 124 14.40%
 
maybe two of them could 41 4.76%
 
see results 75 8.71%
 
Total:861
curl-6 on 27 June 2013
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:

actually they didn't, i read from several developers on beyond 3d that all you had to do was throw the ps2 code and the xbox would give higher resolution and frame rate automaticly kind of like need for speed where all they add was switch on pc textures for the wiiu version cause of the extra ram but apperntly it was only some pc textures.

Not if it was a game very specifically adapted to the PS2 architecture, the way PS3/360 games today take advantage of those systems.

Need for Speed shows the laziness of most multiplat devs on Wii U. They didn't even bother adding higher resolution texures to games like Black Ops 2, Batman, Assassin's Creed 3, Darksiders 2, or Mass Effect 3 despite having all that extra RAM, though Need for Speed shows it's possible if an effort is made.

yea but need for speed had extra dev time so thats not really a fair comparsion to the othere devs, which had to release all at the sametime, need for speed also made cut backs online 6 players instead of 8, they also only added some pc textures., and even with all that extra time the AA was the same and it still had blocky shadows.

They needed time to come to grips with the unfamiliar hardware. In that sense PS3/360 versions effectively had 7 years of extra dev time in the form of the experience Criterion had with them versus having no experience with Wii U.

Adding the higher resolution textures took no time at all, they said it as the flick of a switch. What took time was working with its strange and hard to program for GPU. It was a game in the Wii U's first 6 months, and in the 6th/7th year of the PS3/360 yet it had better textures, reflections, and framerate on Wii U. Because Criterion made an effort. Something other Wii U devs didn't.

You realise by this point that you're a laughing stock in this forum, right? People see right through you.



Around the Network
ninjablade on 27 June 2013
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:

actually they didn't, i read from several developers on beyond 3d that all you had to do was throw the ps2 code and the xbox would give higher resolution and frame rate automaticly kind of like need for speed where all they add was switch on pc textures for the wiiu version cause of the extra ram but apperntly it was only some pc textures.

Not if it was a game very specifically adapted to the PS2 architecture, the way PS3/360 games today take advantage of those systems.

Need for Speed shows the laziness of most multiplat devs on Wii U. They didn't even bother adding higher resolution texures to games like Black Ops 2, Batman, Assassin's Creed 3, Darksiders 2, or Mass Effect 3 despite having all that extra RAM, though Need for Speed shows it's possible if an effort is made.

yea but need for speed had extra dev time so thats not really a fair comparsion to the othere devs, which had to release all at the sametime, need for speed also made cut backs online 6 players instead of 8, they also only added some pc textures., and even with all that extra time the AA was the same and it still had blocky shadows.

They needed time to come to grips with the unfamiliar hardware. In that sense PS3/360 versions effectively had 7 years of extra dev time in the form of the experience Criterion had with them versus having no experience with Wii U.

Adding the higher resolution textures took no time at all, they said it as the flick of a switch. What took time was working with its strange and hard to program for GPU. It was a game in the Wii U's first 6 months, and in the 6th/7th year of the PS3/360 yet it had better textures, reflections, and framerate on Wii U. Because Criterion made an effort. Something other Wii U devs didn't.

You realise by this point that you're a laughing stock in this forum, right? People see right through you.

you mean nintendo fans that can't handle the truth, its funny im the laughing stock when i'm alway right, i predicted the wiiu would bomb and was flamed and laughed at by everybody on this forum, and i also told you guys wiiu was on par with current gen and was flamed and it seems i'm right again and you keep repeating yourself about 6th/7th year of 360 Back then, devs were forced to learn how to exploit shaders, weird in-order CPUs, non-unified memory pools in the case of PS3, and all that jazz. the wiiu is just  pc parts in a box, not some new  ground breaking hardware your making out to be, the fact we haven't even seen a wiiu with great AA just tells how weak the hardware is.



curl-6 on 27 June 2013
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:

They needed time to come to grips with the unfamiliar hardware. In that sense PS3/360 versions effectively had 7 years of extra dev time in the form of the experience Criterion had with them versus having no experience with Wii U.

Adding the higher resolution textures took no time at all, they said it as the flick of a switch. What took time was working with its strange and hard to program for GPU. It was a game in the Wii U's first 6 months, and in the 6th/7th year of the PS3/360 yet it had better textures, reflections, and framerate on Wii U. Because Criterion made an effort. Something other Wii U devs didn't.

You realise by this point that you're a laughing stock in this forum, right? People see right through you.

you mean nintendo fans that can't handle the truth, its funny im the laughing stock when i'm alway right, i predicted the wiiu would bomb and was flamed and laughed at by everybody on this forum, and i also told you guys wiiu was on par with current gen and was flamed and it seems i'm right again and you keep repeating yourself about 6th/7th year of 360 Back then, devs were forced to learn how to exploit shaders, weird in-order CPUs, non-unified memory pools in the case of PS3, and all that jazz. the wiiu is just  pc parts in a box, not some new  ground breaking hardware your making out to be, the fact we haven't even seen a wiiu with great AA just tells how weak the hardware is.

Or it could be you who can't handle the truth. You keep inventng more and more desperate lies to justify your bias, calling it PC parts in a box is laughable when its GPU is not identifiable as any currently known part and confuses tech enthusiasts and developers alike.



ninjablade on 27 June 2013
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:

They needed time to come to grips with the unfamiliar hardware. In that sense PS3/360 versions effectively had 7 years of extra dev time in the form of the experience Criterion had with them versus having no experience with Wii U.

Adding the higher resolution textures took no time at all, they said it as the flick of a switch. What took time was working with its strange and hard to program for GPU. It was a game in the Wii U's first 6 months, and in the 6th/7th year of the PS3/360 yet it had better textures, reflections, and framerate on Wii U. Because Criterion made an effort. Something other Wii U devs didn't.

You realise by this point that you're a laughing stock in this forum, right? People see right through you.

you mean nintendo fans that can't handle the truth, its funny im the laughing stock when i'm alway right, i predicted the wiiu would bomb and was flamed and laughed at by everybody on this forum, and i also told you guys wiiu was on par with current gen and was flamed and it seems i'm right again and you keep repeating yourself about 6th/7th year of 360 Back then, devs were forced to learn how to exploit shaders, weird in-order CPUs, non-unified memory pools in the case of PS3, and all that jazz. the wiiu is just  pc parts in a box, not some new  ground breaking hardware your making out to be, the fact we haven't even seen a wiiu with great AA just tells how weak the hardware is.

Or it could be you who can't handle the truth. You keep inventng more and more desperate lies to justify your bias, calling it PC parts in a box is laughable when its GPU is not identifiable as any currently known part and confuses tech enthusiasts and developers alike.

the  gpu is  160sp or 320sp gpu, thats all we know but of course it will confuse tech heads, there are many different gpu architectures, how many times do you buy a gpu or a console and the specs are kept secret, this thing is not common and very rare so of course it would confuse people as scenerios like this don't really exist at all except with nintendo, any if you want to repley message me cause were making this thread longer then needed.



curl-6 on 27 June 2013
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:

They needed time to come to grips with the unfamiliar hardware. In that sense PS3/360 versions effectively had 7 years of extra dev time in the form of the experience Criterion had with them versus having no experience with Wii U.

Adding the higher resolution textures took no time at all, they said it as the flick of a switch. What took time was working with its strange and hard to program for GPU. It was a game in the Wii U's first 6 months, and in the 6th/7th year of the PS3/360 yet it had better textures, reflections, and framerate on Wii U. Because Criterion made an effort. Something other Wii U devs didn't.

You realise by this point that you're a laughing stock in this forum, right? People see right through you.

you mean nintendo fans that can't handle the truth, its funny im the laughing stock when i'm alway right, i predicted the wiiu would bomb and was flamed and laughed at by everybody on this forum, and i also told you guys wiiu was on par with current gen and was flamed and it seems i'm right again and you keep repeating yourself about 6th/7th year of 360 Back then, devs were forced to learn how to exploit shaders, weird in-order CPUs, non-unified memory pools in the case of PS3, and all that jazz. the wiiu is just  pc parts in a box, not some new  ground breaking hardware your making out to be, the fact we haven't even seen a wiiu with great AA just tells how weak the hardware is.

Or it could be you who can't handle the truth. You keep inventng more and more desperate lies to justify your bias, calling it PC parts in a box is laughable when its GPU is not identifiable as any currently known part and confuses tech enthusiasts and developers alike.

the  gpu is  160sp or 320sp gpu, thats all we know but of course it will confuse tech heads, there are many different gpu architectures, how many times do you buy a gpu or a console and the specs are kept secret, this thing is not common and very rare so of course it would confuse people as scenerios like this don't really exist at all except with nintendo

The point is, if it was just PC parts, it would have taken a matter of HOURS for the exact part to  be identified after the photos came out. It's unidentifiable nature and dev difficulties all point to a highly customized part that will take a lot of effort and time for devs to extract the full power of.



Around the Network
ninjablade on 27 June 2013
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:

They needed time to come to grips with the unfamiliar hardware. In that sense PS3/360 versions effectively had 7 years of extra dev time in the form of the experience Criterion had with them versus having no experience with Wii U.

Adding the higher resolution textures took no time at all, they said it as the flick of a switch. What took time was working with its strange and hard to program for GPU. It was a game in the Wii U's first 6 months, and in the 6th/7th year of the PS3/360 yet it had better textures, reflections, and framerate on Wii U. Because Criterion made an effort. Something other Wii U devs didn't.

You realise by this point that you're a laughing stock in this forum, right? People see right through you.

you mean nintendo fans that can't handle the truth, its funny im the laughing stock when i'm alway right, i predicted the wiiu would bomb and was flamed and laughed at by everybody on this forum, and i also told you guys wiiu was on par with current gen and was flamed and it seems i'm right again and you keep repeating yourself about 6th/7th year of 360 Back then, devs were forced to learn how to exploit shaders, weird in-order CPUs, non-unified memory pools in the case of PS3, and all that jazz. the wiiu is just  pc parts in a box, not some new  ground breaking hardware your making out to be, the fact we haven't even seen a wiiu with great AA just tells how weak the hardware is.

Or it could be you who can't handle the truth. You keep inventng more and more desperate lies to justify your bias, calling it PC parts in a box is laughable when its GPU is not identifiable as any currently known part and confuses tech enthusiasts and developers alike.

the  gpu is  160sp or 320sp gpu, thats all we know but of course it will confuse tech heads, there are many different gpu architectures, how many times do you buy a gpu or a console and the specs are kept secret, this thing is not common and very rare so of course it would confuse people as scenerios like this don't really exist at all except with nintendo

The point is, if it was just PC parts, it would have taken a matter of HOURS for the exact part to  be identified after the photos came out. It's unidentifiable nature and dev difficulties all point to a highly customized part that will take a lot of effort and time for devs to extract the full power of.

my last repley, there many gpu die pics not available for comparison, so its not as easy as you think, getting a gpu die pic is a very expensive thing to do.



curl-6 on 27 June 2013
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:

The point is, if it was just PC parts, it would have taken a matter of HOURS for the exact part to  be identified after the photos came out. It's unidentifiable nature and dev difficulties all point to a highly customized part that will take a lot of effort and time for devs to extract the full power of.

my last repley, there many gpu die pics not available for comparison, so its not as easy as you think, getting a gpu die pic is a very expensive thing to do.

You don't necessarily need die photos though, you can narrow it down by the number of texture mapping units and other components.

They can't match it to a off-the-shelf part because it isn't one. Criterion wouldn't have called an off-the-shelf PC part "a real struggle" to work with.



g911turbo on 27 June 2013
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:

Lmao, if you were around in 2007 would you be arguing that inferior multiplats mean the PS3 is much weaker than the 360?

nope but multplatform games definitely proved that ps3 was on par with 360 and it was up to developers to make games look there best, while every sony fan was screaming ps3 is way more powerful then 360, multplatform games proved that each had there strength and weaknesses and were basically on par.

You seem to love the term "on par".  Whaddya golf a lot or something?



g911turbo on 27 June 2013
Kaizar said:
g911turbo said:

Unfortunately, while having a great picture, my TV does not do 3D

Are you going to get a 3D TV the end of this year or during next year?

The prices of TVs always gets cut every year, and it should be easy to find even better picture & other qualities.


Hmmm probably not just yet.  Hard to justify throwing away a perfectly good 65" TV :(

I suppose I could sell it, but you'll never get back what you paid....



curl-6 on 27 June 2013

LMAO, ninjablade posted here that it was his last reply, then continued the argument in PMs to me, where he could bash Nintendo free from mod supervision. Guess he got sick of being publically humiliated and wanted to keep arguing without an audience.