Magnific0 said: I don't know about multiplats, but in terms of graphics anyone will be hard-pressed to find anything comparable to Uncharted, Gran Turismo 5 : Prologue, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet & Clank: TOD and Metal Gear Solid 4.

Dont forget Ninja Gaiden:Sigma.

ChronotriggerJM said: On topic, I agree in spades about SOME of the multi-plats, but I do feel that Sony made the right choice in the end going with the Cell tech, from what I've heard many games of today are being created with multi-threads in mind, as the aforementioned company Crytek was already doing so yes? Microsoft played is safe this generation, and in the short term it will definitely pay off, I just don't think it gives as much "potential" to hold out well enough for the "10 year" cycle. I mean if I try to think about it, Microsofts next box will do what for more power? Add more Cores? Sony's already on top of that, the next generation of games will almost entirely be multi-threaded, so it's been a pretty rocky and slow start for Sony, but I think they're riding the proper waves :D

I am not sure I agree...Sony is tied to the cell where microsoft can purhase any technology that they would like.

In any case, the problem with the PS3 is not the Cell...its the RSX GPU.

ATI designed GPU in the xbox 360 is more advance than the Nvidia designed one int he ps3. This is most likely because sony could not afford to put the similar GPU in to a ps3 due to cost issues so they chose something that is similar with the Nvidias Geforce 7000 series. Where the ATI desigend one in the xbox is a simplified version of the current ATI GPU's on sale today.

Nevertheless, I don't really think sony did a bad job with the ps3 design and architecture. I just remember comments from their management that said things like "Xbox 360 is a xbox 1.5". When you say things like that and it turns out that 70% of the time Xbox 1.5 beats your next gen platform...ouch.

Oh I totally agree Sony did some bizzare stuff with the GPU :P But for some reason they really do know what they're doing xD as mentioned earlier, the PS3 with the WEAKER GPU still has the first party titles that are considered to be the if-so-facto of console graphics pinnacle.

Another thing Sony did right with the Cell that more companies just have to take advantage of, is the fact that the Cell processor is AMAZING at shader and model processing, taking a MEGATON load off the RSX. So all in all the RSX is weaker than the 360's GPU by a marginal amount, but Sony planned from the start of the project to have the CPU and GPU work literally hand in hand. The PS3 is a technical beast if used to it's fullest and I'm POSITIVE we'll see that in up-coming titles, Killzone 2 is an obvious jump and gives almost every current PC game a run for it's money in terms of graphical capabilities, and FFXIII from what little I've seen looks like playable CGI xD FAR MORE graphically intensive than they're multi-plat UE3 game coming up if you ask me xD

Let's look at it this way: yes, Microsoft was able to put inside the 360 a very powerful GPU...BUT, it turns out it was like cramming a big fat beast into the frame of a sheep. Result? It fries to death.

So what good is to have a Formula 1 engine inside of a Ford Fiesta? Is that good design to you?

 

@Magnific0

LOL...while I disagree, I like that analogy and will leave it alone.

Honestly, as an owner of both, I wish ps3 and 360 would work together to deliver better gaming experiences...lol

Like if a company is doing 2 games and has an X amount of money...make the first game on the 360 only and save the dev costs towards game 2...and then make that one on PS3.

But thats as much of a strategy plan as releasing an Xmote for the 360 and hoping nintendo makes mario titles for it.

Well, sticking to FPS games as the OP asks I think its pretty obvious. With the exception of something like COD4 (new engine and simultaneous PS3/360 development) most FPS released are either on U3 engine (originally designed for PC) or on engines designed with PC in mind originally.

It's no secret that while 360 does not = PC in architecture it is similar enough (especially with dev kits) that getting an engine designed to work on PCs to work on it is very easy.

PS3 has no such advantage with these engines and indeed with its Cell design and memory architecture it does not work well with these generic middlware engines and all to often they simply do not perform on PS3 as well as 360.

UT3 on PS3 looks and plays good, but required Sony assisting Epic dev team (so far as I can gather from a few internet searches) and is arguably the only truly well optimized U3 based game on PS3 (that I've played at least, although I gather there are some others).

Now this will change over time, as newer engines (such as new ID engine and console version of Crytek engine) have apparently been designed for both PS3 and 360 and engines like Unreal engine increasingly get tuned for PS3.

Right now though the best FPS on PS3 are without a doubt either build purely for the system (RFOM and I'm willing to guess RFOM2), based on simultaneous development (COD4) or games with a lot of Sony input on tuning (UT3) - as Turok and the like show your more average FPS game is still likely to play/look better on 360 for a while yet.

And as Haze showed, even an exclusive FPS can still struggle on the PS3 architecture if the devs don't get right into the guts of how to exploit the system (and as much as I respect Free Radical's FPS credentials Haze graphically is simply not as good as it should be so I really have to hold them accountable for this as RFOM has better graphics and was a launch title rather than a title given ample time via delays to get itself really polished... although I will say the core FPS mechanics are indeed solid as many reviews - even the bad ones - have indicated).

But hey, remember that the best FPS on 360 or PS3 always trail their PC counterparts graphically anyway!

@ disolitude

The main "problem" with the PS3 are the Cell's SPUs', a radically different but extremely powerful approach. The RSX is mainly a PC style GPU, this apart from how the GPU is able to potentially take advantage of the Cell. The RSX is in many ways more powerful than the Xenos, such as allowing for more shader ops/sec. The Xenos' main advantage as well as a disadvantage for the long run is its reliance upon its daughter chip approach. The PS3 has far more system bandwidth and fewer bottlenecks.

The main reasons why some 360 to PS3 ports are better on the 360 is due the 360 being better able to handle inefficiently designed game engines (but the dev approaches needed to get the most out of the Cell are beneficial to the 360 as well), the platform's one year headstart providing developers more time to get to know the system and tools which are more similar to those available for Windows PCs.

Talented developers given enough time will be able to push the PS3 much further than will be possible on the 360.

MikeB said: @ disolitude In any case, the problem with the PS3 is not the Cell...its the RSX GPU. The main "problem" with the PS3 are the Cell's SPUs', a radically different but extremely powerful approach. The RSX is mainly a PC style GPU, this apart from how the GPU is able to potentially take advantage of the Cell. The RSX is in many ways more powerful than the Xenos, such as allowing for more shader ops/sec. The Xenos' main advantage as well as a disadvantage for the long run is its reliance upon its daughter chip approach. The PS3 has far more system bandwidth and fewer bottlenecks. The main reasons why some 360 to PS3 ports are better on the 360 is due the 360 being better able to handle inefficiently designed game engines (but the dev approaches needed to get the most out of the Cell are beneficial to the 360 as well), the platform's one year headstart providing developers more time to get to know the system and tools which are more similar to those available for Windows PCs. Talented developers given enough time will be able to push the PS3 much further than will be possible on the 360.

That seems to me like a very elitist point of view. "You can't make this look good therefore you are not a good programmer."

There are things like budget and time that are a factor even for the best movie directors and game programmers.

Sure, Epic games can fiddle with the game engine till it runs in circles around the 360 version. However its just not a smart business decision to do this at this point.

Steven Spelberg could have made Indiana Jones not suck as bad...but he only had 185 million to work with... :)

disolitude said: That seems to me like a very elitist point of view. "You can't make this look good therefore you are not a good programmer." There are things like budget and time that are a factor even for the best movie directors and game programmers. Sure, Epic games can fiddle with the game engine till it runs in circles around the 360 version. However its just not a smart business decision to do this at this point. Steven Spelberg could have made Indiana Jones not suck as bad...but he only had 185 million to work with... :)

But isn't this the path of darkness to begin with? Sony said the PS3 would be worlds more powerful than the 360 and in many respective ways it is. Like you mentioned, if Epic took the time, they COULD make the unreal engine run circles around the 360, but your right, there is no real point ^^; The 360 had a year head start for project development, and until the PS3 userbase becomes the more viable platform to develop on, it will probably just get more ports :P and once the engines catch up and work out the "tweaks" ports will look just fine, the exclusives though will be in a world of they're own by comparison however.

disolitude said: MikeB said: @ disolitude In any case, the problem with the PS3 is not the Cell...its the RSX GPU. The main "problem" with the PS3 are the Cell's SPUs', a radically different but extremely powerful approach. The RSX is mainly a PC style GPU, this apart from how the GPU is able to potentially take advantage of the Cell. The RSX is in many ways more powerful than the Xenos, such as allowing for more shader ops/sec. The Xenos' main advantage as well as a disadvantage for the long run is its reliance upon its daughter chip approach. The PS3 has far more system bandwidth and fewer bottlenecks. The main reasons why some 360 to PS3 ports are better on the 360 is due the 360 being better able to handle inefficiently designed game engines (but the dev approaches needed to get the most out of the Cell are beneficial to the 360 as well), the platform's one year headstart providing developers more time to get to know the system and tools which are more similar to those available for Windows PCs. Talented developers given enough time will be able to push the PS3 much further than will be possible on the 360. That seems to me like a very elitist point of view. "You can't make this look good therefore you are not a good programmer." There are things like budget and time that are a factor even for the best movie directors and game programmers. Sure, Epic games can fiddle with the game engine till it runs in circles around the 360 version. However its just not a smart business decision to do this at this point. Steven Spelberg could have made Indiana Jones not suck as bad...but he only had 185 million to work with... :)

Yes, it has to do with effort and dedication. Creating games for the Snes, NeoGeo, PSX, etc were also harder to develop for than on far more expensive and inefficient PCs. Consoles in the past have always been about dedicating best efforts to push the hardware to the best of developer abilities. IMO that's also part of the charm of consoles. I think many devs are too ambitious (like demoscene coders) to not push the tech to the limits, I think it's mainly company managers which are looking at short term costs, rather than at long term gains.

IMO it makes sense for Epic to continue to improve their engine despite their public comments at this point (their perspectives change as fast as the wind), they will receive lots of competition in the future. Who knows, maybe even from Crytek or Square Enix. Sony devs are sharing their knowledge, Sony themselves is helping developers like they helped Epic to get an acceptable performance out of the Unreal engine. IMO it makes sense to deliver a cutting edge product for them to compete, their engine looking subpar and dated isn't a position I think they would like to be in.