Developers are beginning to understand the ps3. Just look at multiplatform games that are built around both systems, rather than ported from the 360 to ps3. DMC4 and Burnout paradise both look and perform excellently on both platforms.

However, since the architectures of both consoles are so radically different, sacrifices must be made to make a game run equally well on both platforms. This is why I am an ardent supporter of exclusive games over multiplatform games. Exclusive games make the best use out of whatever system the game is being developed for.

Consider the ps3's "theoretical power" that keeps being mentioned. The only games that will utilize this are ps3 exclusives, and so far we've seen this through Uncharted: Drak's Fortune and Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, which are currently the best looking console game out. This power will further be exemplified through Killzone 2, which has a very complex animations system, excellent physics, semi-destructible environments, and easily the best graphics (particularly the lighting) of any console game yet shown.

starcraft said: Username2324 said: 360 has already reached it's peak, why do you think games are coming out sub-HD now? The PS3's architecture is beginning to be understood, and developers have learned to use the SPE's but not to their full ability, we will enjoy better and better looking games for atleast another year before it's at it's peak. PS3 > 360 Read my first post to understand why you are fundamentally incorrect. As for sub-HD, neither of the two high-definition consoles are powerful enough to render high-physics, high-graphics games at 1080p with a fast, consistent frame-rate. It's an interesting paradox. If you believe Sony, you must have 1080p, 60FPS games in order to truly enjoy the next generation. The irony is, if you follow this advice you need to bypass the PS3 and go straight to an expensive gaming PC. As for the last part, I think we will eventually see a very minor graphical advantage for some exclusive PS3 games over 360 ones. That said, due to it's more focused architecture, the 360 will have better AI in it's top games, which can be applied to gameplay while a little extra graphical sheen cannot.

According to your post you think the Wii will desimate both the 360 and PS3 and neither will ever get to its full potential.

And, HD applies to resolutions above 720p, not just 1080p, thats why sub-HD is so sad for the 360, games running at 640p, 600p. (some of its biggest titles, Halo 3 for example.)

If you honestly think the 360 still has a few more years of advancement, well you're one of the biggest optimists for the 360 that I know, while its undeniable the PS3 will get much better.

 

Username2324 said: starcraft said: Username2324 said: 360 has already reached it's peak, why do you think games are coming out sub-HD now? The PS3's architecture is beginning to be understood, and developers have learned to use the SPE's but not to their full ability, we will enjoy better and better looking games for atleast another year before it's at it's peak. PS3 > 360 Read my first post to understand why you are fundamentally incorrect. As for sub-HD, neither of the two high-definition consoles are powerful enough to render high-physics, high-graphics games at 1080p with a fast, consistent frame-rate. It's an interesting paradox. If you believe Sony, you must have 1080p, 60FPS games in order to truly enjoy the next generation. The irony is, if you follow this advice you need to bypass the PS3 and go straight to an expensive gaming PC. As for the last part, I think we will eventually see a very minor graphical advantage for some exclusive PS3 games over 360 ones. That said, due to it's more focused architecture, the 360 will have better AI in it's top games, which can be applied to gameplay while a little extra graphical sheen cannot. According to your post you think the Wii will desimate both the 360 and PS3 and neither will ever get to its full potential. And, HD applies to resolutions at or above 720p, not just 1080p, thats why sub-HD is so sad for the 360, games running at 640p, 600p. (some of its biggest titles, Halo 3 for example.) If you honestly think the 360 still has a few more years of advancement, well you're one of the biggest optimists for the 360 that I know, while its undeniable the PS3 will get much better.

Fixed. :P

starcraft said: Username2324 said: 360 has already reached it's peak, why do you think games are coming out sub-HD now? The PS3's architecture is beginning to be understood, and developers have learned to use the SPE's but not to their full ability, we will enjoy better and better looking games for atleast another year before it's at it's peak. PS3 > 360 Read my first post to understand why you are fundamentally incorrect. As for sub-HD, neither of the two high-definition consoles are powerful enough to render high-physics, high-graphics games at 1080p with a fast, consistent frame-rate. It's an interesting paradox. If you believe Sony, you must have 1080p, 60FPS games in order to truly enjoy the next generation. The irony is, if you follow this advice you need to bypass the PS3 and go straight to an expensive gaming PC. As for the last part, I think we will eventually see a very minor graphical advantage for some exclusive PS3 games over 360 ones. That said, due to it's more focused architecture, the 360 will have better AI in it's top games, which can be applied to gameplay while a little extra graphical sheen cannot.

As for 1080p/60fps, I point you towards GT5. Of course, this is the exception and not the rule, but it does exist.

As for gameplay vs graphics, the Cell has a hefty edge in physics, which can be applied to gameplay much like AI. And the ps3 only has trouble with AI if developers choose to use the SPUs for AI (IIRC, Naughty Dog did this with Uncharted, but Uncharted's AI was pretty good). However, the Cell should have no trouble handling normal, branching AI if the code is run on the PPU instead of the SPUs, as far as I am aware, and this is what GG is doing with Killzone 2.

Username2324 said: starcraft said: Read my first post to understand why you are fundamentally incorrect. As for sub-HD, neither of the two high-definition consoles are powerful enough to render high-physics, high-graphics games at 1080p with a fast, consistent frame-rate. It's an interesting paradox. If you believe Sony, you must have 1080p, 60FPS games in order to truly enjoy the next generation. The irony is, if you follow this advice you need to bypass the PS3 and go straight to an expensive gaming PC. As for the last part, I think we will eventually see a very minor graphical advantage for some exclusive PS3 games over 360 ones. That said, due to it's more focused architecture, the 360 will have better AI in it's top games, which can be applied to gameplay while a little extra graphical sheen cannot. According to your post you think the Wii will desimate both the 360 and PS3 and neither will ever get to its full potential. And, HD applies to resolutions above 720p, not just 1080p, thats why sub-HD is so sad for the 360, games running at 640p, 600p. (some of its biggest titles, Halo 3 for example.) If you honestly think the 360 still has a few more years of advancement, well you're one of the biggest optimists for the 360 that I know, while its undeniable the PS3 will get much better.

What I actually said is that not many titles will come out after these two consoles reach their potential.  You realise that there are plenty of sub-hd PS3 games right?  For example CoD4?

People said that GeoW was as good as it was going to get for the 360, but then came Mass Effect, Bioshock, Fable 2 and now some early footage from GeoW2, and they are all kicking the original GeoW's ass.

IF you don't think both of these consoles have an awful lot more to offer you really need to look back over the last couple of gaming generations.  And if you really want to play consistently high-definition, high-graphics games, you need to sell your PS3 and get a gaming PC.

makingmusic476 said: As for 1080p/60fps, I point you towards GT5. Of course, this is the exception and not the rule, but it does exist. As for gameplay vs graphics, the Cell has a hefty edge in physics, which can be applied to gameplay much like AI. And the ps3 only has trouble with AI if developers choose to use the SPUs for AI (IIRC, Naughty Dog did this with Uncharted, but Uncharted's AI was pretty good). However, the Cell should have no trouble handling normal, branching AI if the code is run on the PPU instead of the SPUs, as far as I am aware, and this is what GG is doing with Killzone 2.

Forza 2 ran at 60FPS and 720p, with the physics engine refreshin 360 times a second.  It's (relatively of course) easy to get high-definition games with fast smooth frame rates when you have a confined linear experience like a racer, but it is unlikely that the PS3 will ever see such stats in high-action open-spaced games.  IF it does, it will be on a select few games at the end of the generation, far from the consistent 1080p 60FPS Sony promised.

As for AI, Ubisoft have stated there is simply AI routines the 360 can run that the PS3 never will.  Many developers have expressed concern over the PS3's (comparitively) limited AI capabilities and limited memory.  These limitations are much harder to overcome than disk space issues that can be rectified through multiple-disks or downloads.

starcraft said: makingmusic476 said: As for 1080p/60fps, I point you towards GT5. Of course, this is the exception and not the rule, but it does exist. As for gameplay vs graphics, the Cell has a hefty edge in physics, which can be applied to gameplay much like AI. And the ps3 only has trouble with AI if developers choose to use the SPUs for AI (IIRC, Naughty Dog did this with Uncharted, but Uncharted's AI was pretty good). However, the Cell should have no trouble handling normal, branching AI if the code is run on the PPU instead of the SPUs, as far as I am aware, and this is what GG is doing with Killzone 2. Forza 2 ran at 60FPS and 720p, with the physics engine refreshin 360 times a second. It's (relatively of course) easy to get high-definition games with fast smooth frame rates when you have a confined linear experience like a racer, but it is unlikely that the PS3 will ever see such stats in high-action open-spaced games. IF it does, it will be on a select few games at the end of the generation, far from the consistent 1080p 60FPS Sony promised. As for AI, Ubisoft have stated there is simply AI routines the 360 can run that the PS3 never will. Many developers have expressed concern over the PS3's (comparitively) limited AI capabilities and limited memory. These limitations are much harder to overcome than disk space issues that can be rectified through multiple-disks or downloads.

Ubisoft's comment consisted of "the PS3 can’t handle AI nearly as well as the 360." How that translates into what you said, I'm not sure. And it was said in reference to Splinter Cell: Conviction, a 360 exclusive. I'll file that right next too (paraphrasing) Ubi's "Naruto is too complex for the ps3" and Cliffy B's "Gears of War could not be run on the ps3."

Also, look at the craptastic ps3 port of Splinter Cell: Deadly Alliance. Are you really going to trust Ubisoft on this?

Edit:  And Forza 2 still only runs at 720p, despite it's mediocre graphics in comparison to games like PGR4 and GT5. 

well i think every dev has learned excluding EA ( skate., madden 08, fifa 08.)

Regarding the SPUs and AI. It's a bit harder doing AI using the SPUs, but researchers are using the Cell to reproduce functions of the human brain. This should be telling enough.

You can also offload most calculative intense stuff to the SPUs leaving the PPE to handle stuff like AI as that's easier, but at least some of the AI should be done on the SPUs for complex games as you can do a lot more stuff simultaneously.

With regard to graphics, the PS3 is far more powerful than the 360. Naughty Dog's first attempt already beats any fourth generation 360 game out there and they are only getting started. Read my sig.