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

Forums - Gaming - Debunking the myth that the PS3 > Xbox360, The real work proves Xbox > PS3

NNN2004 on 23 July 2008

Insomniac is the only active developer for PS3 for that i like them... also all their game are AAA titles for me.



Around the Network
sieanr on 23 July 2008
ssj12 said:

that and theit lack of undersanding for the PS3 because they are to lazy to learn it. Heck, Insomniac has that entire web based info center on the PS3 yet it seems no 3rd parties are using it.

Yep

The same thing happened with the Sega Saturn. Developers were too lazy to learn how to work a dual processor console with a bizarre architecture. Of course you could claim that it was Segas fault for designing something so obtuse, and that Sony won because they made an easy to develop system. But where is the fun in that?



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

NFGBlinkAC on 23 July 2008

Topic fails at an epic level



SamuelRSmith on 23 July 2008
NFGBlinkAC said:
Topic fails at an epic level

 

 Please direct me to the level at which it fails at.



Phendrana on 23 July 2008
NNN2004 said:
Phendrana said:
Do you think the 360's year head start may have something to do with this? Games always get better as consoles progress through their life cycle. Just a thought. I really have no idea.

 

like always sony fans say that as argument ... ok u want a proof that ur mistaken .. i will give u one ... ps3 & Wii launch at the same year no one year head start no nothing, both have new technologies and the developers need a time to used to it .... then why the hell Wii have more games & no delays ?? why the hell Wii make 4 or 5 games with the same time sony take it to make one game ??!! wake up Fan .. its not an argument anymore.

 

Sony fan, wtf? If anything I'm a Nintendo fan who also owns a PS3. It was an honest question. Don't be so defensive. I really couldn't care less about PS3 vs. 360 since they both play pretty much the same games. Arguing about which HD console looks better is like two twins arguing over who has the better haircut.

And your example doesn't make any sense.

@Squilliam

Thanks for answering my question reasonably.



Around the Network
ChronotriggerJM on 23 July 2008

Ok, after reading your post and reading the following comments. This is what I'm getting.

1.) The PS3 is harder to develop for.
2.) The 360 is cheaper than the PS3 to develop for.

...

....

......

Can we please bury this thread into a folder titled "shit we already knew"?

I REALLY appreciate the post and the effort that went into it... But honestly...

Like you mentioned, you can't really compare exclusives, but why is it that so many top tier exclusives on the 360 suffer bizarre problems or short comings? Mass effect was a technical trainwreck, Halo 3.. the flagship title... was 640p at I think 30 frames per second...and short as fuch, and the holy grail of an exclusive for the 360, Gears of War, was supposedly out-classed by Unreal 3 for the PS3 :/

So many games have been pushing simple things for a while now that the 360 is just starting to see, the much farther draw distances, still nowhere near as many effects on screen, higher poly counts, more enemies on screen blah blah blah blah. If the PS3 was in any way inferior, why are these things just now being seen on the 360? Even after the year head start? Fact is, most reviewers still say the PS3 exclusives "Look" and generally perform better than the 360 exclusives, and they're on the system that's harder to program for...

Then (now here's where sony is obviously dumping huge amounts of money for publicity I'm sure) almost every developer, of any studio, like... ever... always has to make some comment, about how much headroom the PS3 has, how insanely powerful the system is, etc etc etc... Now, I understand if it's a Sony first party studio, sure, it's expected, the "fanboy's" just write it off as obvious Sony PR speak, but then... almost every third party studio jumps on the bandwagon... and then what? Still blind PR? From EVERY company to work with it? Give me a break...

I will give you that it's definitely cheaper to work with, and while the 360 has the higher userbase, it will be the lead development platform of choice, but most of that post I personally find to be rubbish... it's obvious that (most) multi-plats are going to be a hair better on the 360, it's easier to work on, and as you mentioned, not everyone has the funds to match the quality for the harder to program system. But your topic name is still wrong. The PS3 is a more powerful machine, it's just accepted in the industry, and the exclusives are proving it with every release. Wether or not it comes to graphics (see the illustrious Killzone 2, GT5p, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank), sheer scale and enemycount/particle effects on screen (Resistance 2, KZ2, Heavenly Sword, Super Stardust HD



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

taxman on 23 July 2008
Squilliam said:
taxman said:
Squilliam said:
Phendrana said:
Do you think the 360's year head start may have something to do with this? Games always get better as consoles progress through their life cycle. Just a thought. I really have no idea.

 

Games get better for several different reasons. *Just quickly*

Developers can learn to gain the most visual impact by expending resources where they count the most.

I.E If we sacrifice One unit of A and get two units of B we get a better looking game. The depth of field effect is a prime example - they sacfrifice far off detail for close in detail where people are paying closer attention.

They can also take advantage of better tools and techniques so that they can get the game out faster while giving them more time to tweak the little things.

I.E The engine is already 80% right for this game, they can spend 3000 man hours working on their streaming engine so they can get better texture effects.

But by now the games companies have had 3-4 years working with both Consoles so 85% of what if possible (Just roughly) on both consoles has been done already or will be done in games coming out in the next 6 months.

 

I guess that is where your argument fails....

As you say here, the quality of the finished product is based on the Man hours put into the engine. This means that as far as multiplatform titles are concerned, the performance of the engine is limited by the budget and it has nothing to do with the true performance capabilities of the systems.

Since it is harder to programme for the PS3 then it suffers more from this constraint and hence you can prove nothing with only comparing the two titles you selected...

Fact is that an engine that takes advantage 100% of the PS3 power is not yet available and there is no way of knowing how this would perform. No one knows yet, but if i had a guess I would say it is much more likely that the 360 is closer to the top if its capabilities than the PS3

Actually every single title in that list - except for Oblivion/CODIII show advantages for the Xbox360 version in resolution or MSAA levels or both. The specific examples I had more information about.

in the real world we all live in - even developers haha, have to live within a budget. If I have 3 minutes per day to apply makeup and I have two different products to use, one gives me the better result in 3 minutes it doesn't matter how pretty I look with 6 minutes and the other product does it? So for that real world application one is obviously better than the other. But yes, you'd have to prove that the rockstar people didn't infact spend MILLIONS of dollars on both the Xbox360 and PS3 versions of the game to really disprove what I've been saying, the rest is just supporting stuff.

You know appeals to faith about untapped potential don't real sway more than the converted. So you're saying theres no way of knowing? And yet you seem to think this implies outrageous potential? Its like you're begging the question and other stuff that doesn't win you debates.

 

 

I wasn't talking about outrageous potential or implying anything. I am merely saying that you are trying to prove that the 360>PS3 for the moment and any time in the future and doing that by comparing only 2 games with limited budgets.

I am saying that nothing conclusive can come from this because there is no way of knowing how far each console was pushed which means that currently 306>PS3 but you fail in you argument that 306>PS3 forever...

 



PSN ID: T_Gears

End of 2009 ltd sales:

Wii = 67-68m

X360 = 38-39m

PS3 = 34-35m

Prediction: The PS3 will surpass the 360 on weekly sales after it drops to $299 on all regular weeks (no big releases).

el_rika on 23 July 2008

MGS4 is said to be the best looking console game at the moment, both technically and artistically, so i dunno, it all comes down to the developers ability to...develop.. i guess.



"You have the right to the remains of a silent attorney"

Squilliam on 23 July 2008
taxman said:
Squilliam said:
taxman said:
Squilliam said:
Phendrana said:
Do you think the 360's year head start may have something to do with this? Games always get better as consoles progress through their life cycle. Just a thought. I really have no idea.

 

Games get better for several different reasons. *Just quickly*

Developers can learn to gain the most visual impact by expending resources where they count the most.

I.E If we sacrifice One unit of A and get two units of B we get a better looking game. The depth of field effect is a prime example - they sacfrifice far off detail for close in detail where people are paying closer attention.

They can also take advantage of better tools and techniques so that they can get the game out faster while giving them more time to tweak the little things.

I.E The engine is already 80% right for this game, they can spend 3000 man hours working on their streaming engine so they can get better texture effects.

But by now the games companies have had 3-4 years working with both Consoles so 85% of what if possible (Just roughly) on both consoles has been done already or will be done in games coming out in the next 6 months.

 

I guess that is where your argument fails....

As you say here, the quality of the finished product is based on the Man hours put into the engine. This means that as far as multiplatform titles are concerned, the performance of the engine is limited by the budget and it has nothing to do with the true performance capabilities of the systems.

Since it is harder to programme for the PS3 then it suffers more from this constraint and hence you can prove nothing with only comparing the two titles you selected...

Fact is that an engine that takes advantage 100% of the PS3 power is not yet available and there is no way of knowing how this would perform. No one knows yet, but if i had a guess I would say it is much more likely that the 360 is closer to the top if its capabilities than the PS3

Actually every single title in that list - except for Oblivion/CODIII show advantages for the Xbox360 version in resolution or MSAA levels or both. The specific examples I had more information about.

in the real world we all live in - even developers haha, have to live within a budget. If I have 3 minutes per day to apply makeup and I have two different products to use, one gives me the better result in 3 minutes it doesn't matter how pretty I look with 6 minutes and the other product does it? So for that real world application one is obviously better than the other. But yes, you'd have to prove that the rockstar people didn't infact spend MILLIONS of dollars on both the Xbox360 and PS3 versions of the game to really disprove what I've been saying, the rest is just supporting stuff.

You know appeals to faith about untapped potential don't real sway more than the converted. So you're saying theres no way of knowing? And yet you seem to think this implies outrageous potential? Its like you're begging the question and other stuff that doesn't win you debates.

 

 

I wasn't talking about outrageous potential or implying anything. I am merely saying that you are trying to prove that the 360>PS3 for the moment and any time in the future and doing that by comparing only 2 games with limited budgets.

I am saying that nothing conclusive can come from this because there is no way of knowing how far each console was pushed which means that currently 306>PS3 but you fail in you argument that 306>PS3 forever...

 

http://exophase.com/ps3/gta-iv-development-costs-totaled-100-million-outnumbers-shenmue-4677.htm Gta IV <--- 100million budget, Result - Xbox360 > PS3 in Rendering resolution, Frame rate and AA level.

 

 



Tease.

Oyvoyvoyv on 23 July 2008
SamuelRSmith said:
NFGBlinkAC said:
Topic fails at an epic level

 

 Please direct me to the level at which it fails at.

 

 It uses statistics to prove a point. Lately, every thread the OP does this in is either ignored or attacked like hell.

 



http://www.vgchartz.com/games/userreviewdisp.php?id=261

That is VGChartz LONGEST review. And it's NOT Cute Kitten DS