no i think something else will look better then gears

There's no way the 360 is close to being maxed only 2 1/2 years into it's life, but M$ definitely shot themselves in the foot by using a DVD in the 360. If they had used some format with a bigger capacity, they may have been able to knock Sony's lead more than they already did and maybe even KO them. The 360 has the power to stand up against the Cell, but it's storage medium is choking it. (Unlike a PC, the 360 (probably) can't do Crysis level graphics from one DVD)

mrstickball said:   Very funny. By that same regard, I think MGS4 looks only a little better than MGS3. At any rate, I'd love to see a company make a AAA Xbox 360 game that used the same budget as MGS4. You know, 200+ developers, 4 years, $40m+ for 1 game. The fact that it takes such a HUGE game to have PS3 fans start claiming superiority is staggering. Gears was made for about 1/4th the budget of MGS4, yet people are saying that MGS4 looks slightly better. Crazy that a $10m game that was made 1 and 1/2 years ago is being compared to a game that came out last week, and cost over $40m, no?

 

LOL C'mon now, you can be a fanboy, but don't make ridiculous comments, you could've said Resistance 2 looks marginally better than Resistance 1 and that would be more acceptable based on the latest screenshots.....lol at MGS4 only looking a littler better than MGS3.

 

Also do you have a source for the budgets of those games? I can't comment on how much better MGS4 looks as compared to Gears as I haven't played MGS4 yet.

ZenfoldorVGI said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't internet speculation and group-think also dictate that the original GoW still looks better than any game on the PS3? This site is pretty Sony friendly, so you might not have heard that, but it's the common view. I disagree. I think the games look like crap. Dark, grey, ugly.   The best looking games are multiplat, CoD4, GRiD, Assassin's Creed. In most cases, it's impossible to tell the difference, and I'd say that if the 360's tapped, then so is the PS3, because having owned both systems, the difference graphically is so small, it is inconsequential. As in, it makes absolutely no difference which console a game is on graphically as long as the developers don't screw it up. Of course, that's contrary to Sony's promises, but it's the truth, and topics like this are really grasping for straws. Just silly.

Not on GAF and Beyond3D, no.

 

 

We're entering into the first phase of obsolesce for both the PS3 and XBox 360 where (because the lack the processing power to run the latest and greatest techniques fully) new techniques are implemented in a scaled down version in order to get the effect without the full cost. In the next phase they will begin to try to emulate newer effects by taking advantage of effects they can produce in unintended ways (an example of this is using a specular-map to give the impression of a bump map, which was a common technique on the PS2). The final stage is when someone comes up with a crazy hack (which often includes very odd pre-calculations) to produce an effect which shouldn't be possible on the hardware ...

In other words, the XBox 360 and PS3 may have reached the technical limit of what you will see, but (being that necessity is the mother of invention) you will still see new effects implemented on both systems which will improve image quality for quite some time ...

HappySqurriel said: We're entering into the first phase of obsolesce for both the PS3 and XBox 360 where (because the lack the processing power to run the latest and greatest techniques fully) new techniques are implemented in a scaled down version in order to get the effect without the full cost. In the next phase they will begin to try to emulate newer effects by taking advantage of effects they can produce in unintended ways (an example of this is using a specular-map to give the impression of a bump map, which was a common technique on the PS2). The final stage is when someone comes up with a crazy hack (which often includes very odd pre-calculations) to produce an effect which shouldn't be possible on the hardware ... In other words, the XBox 360 and PS3 may have reached the technical limit of what you will see, but (being that necessity is the mother of invention) you will still see new effects implemented on both systems which will improve image quality for quite some time ...

 

 Dude the PS3 has not reached its limit, you act as if the PS3 and the XBOX 360 are the same spec wise, they arent.

mrstickball said: colonelstubbs said: Considering the 360 is a slightly pimped up xbox, comments saying it usually takes 4-5 years to reach the peak of a consoles ability dont apply here. If you disagree, compare halo 2 with halo 3. Difference in graphics? Not really. Graphically geow2 looks fractionally better than geow1, so id say there isnt much more to pump out of the 360    Very funny. By that same regard, I think MGS4 looks only a little better than MGS3. At any rate, I'd love to see a company make a AAA Xbox 360 game that used the same budget as MGS4. You know, 200+ developers, 4 years, $40m+ for 1 game. The fact that it takes such a HUGE game to have PS3 fans start claiming superiority is staggering. Gears was made for about 1/4th the budget of MGS4, yet people are saying that MGS4 looks slightly better. Crazy that a $10m game that was made 1 and 1/2 years ago is being compared to a game that came out last week, and cost over $40m, no?

Yeah your also comparing a story that felt like it was thought up in 2 days in someones basement,to a story that probably took a few months and a few people to pen down.Not to mention Gears has a 6 hour campaign,while MGS4 has a 20+ hour one.Honestly,after playing the game,i just can't see where that "40 million"dollars went./sarcasm

leo-j said: HappySqurriel said: We're entering into the first phase of obsolesce for both the PS3 and XBox 360 where (because the lack the processing power to run the latest and greatest techniques fully) new techniques are implemented in a scaled down version in order to get the effect without the full cost. In the next phase they will begin to try to emulate newer effects by taking advantage of effects they can produce in unintended ways (an example of this is using a specular-map to give the impression of a bump map, which was a common technique on the PS2). The final stage is when someone comes up with a crazy hack (which often includes very odd pre-calculations) to produce an effect which shouldn't be possible on the hardware ... In other words, the XBox 360 and PS3 may have reached the technical limit of what you will see, but (being that necessity is the mother of invention) you will still see new effects implemented on both systems which will improve image quality for quite some time ...    Dude the PS3 has not reached its limit, you act as if the PS3 and the XBOX 360 are the same spec wise, they arent.

Its been over 3 years since people began developing games for the PS3 and developers still haven't been able to reliably match the performance of the XBox 360. Even if the PS3 sees a massive improvement it still will not ever be powerful enough to claim that it is not in the same (basic) performance range as the XBox 360.

MikeB said: @ NJ5 For the sake of people who didn't read the last page, let it be said that those percentages are almost meaningless since this is a console game we're talking about. No they are not and yes you can perform manual optimisations like I stated in my first post within this thread. But I was talking about game engine design and that's about optimal at this point for the 360 with top games. The hardware is being used as intended. When for Motorstorm wit as said to use about 15% of available SPU resources, this could be brought down further as well with through extensive optimisation. What I am saying game engines on the PS3 still don't tap its potential like it's intended. Resistance 2 would be, as they moved almost everything onto the SPUs, it will be interesting to know how much of the Cell potential they will be tapping this time.

 

My claim is very simple.

You are saying "this game uses X% of 360's CPU". I'm saying that's meaningless in terms of estimating a platform's capability.

Imagine a hypothetical game which uses 75% of 360's CPU cycles. This means it's doable with 75% or less of that CPU. However, if its code was optimized, the same game would be doable with 50% of the CPU, but you can't tell that from the first sentence...

When you say "this existing game uses X% of the CPU", that doesn't say anything about that CPU's maximum capability. It does say something about its minimum capability though.

 

@ HappySquirrel

Even PS3 exclusives like Genjii 2 or Fl0w did not use the SPUs at all. It takes a while for PPE code to be moved over to the SPUs, it took a while for a mature dev kit to arrive. Look at the PS3's OS at launch and how much has been added and will be added soon, IMO Sony released the PS3 as soon as the hardware was solid, but the Cell approach was too different to have mature software engines around launch. This takes time, the Amiga was radically different, it took many years for devs to really tap into its custom chip potential, this due to being so different and cutting edge for its time. Luckily Sony provides a lot better developer support than Commodore ever did.