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

taxman on 23 July 2008
Squilliam said:
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.

 

 

You can give $100m to me if you want, I still won't make a good game. The budget doesn't mean that they utilised to PS3 to the max. They utilised it as far as they knew they could. That's why 1 party exclusives look 3x better....

 



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).

Around the Network
ChronotriggerJM on 23 July 2008
Oyvoyvoyv said:
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.

 

The point he's trying to prove, and the fact's he's pulling from don't support the claim though -_-; The fact's he's using prove that it's easier to program for, and cheaper to program for... We already knew this. The only way you'll get to see what a system is really capable of is via exclusives. And it's almost universally accepted that PS3 exclusives push the "cutting" edge. I don't wait for the next 360 game to showcase what consoles of this gen can do graphically, I don't wait for the 360 to see how rediculous the player counts can get up to for a multi-player game, I don't wait for the 360 to do anything as far as technology is concerned >_> In my opinion it's not the console holding the deck of cards.

Because the 360 is easier to work with, it will be 100% utilized long before the PS3 is, and in my opinion it's still playing catch up.

 



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

jacks81x on 23 July 2008

Who cares? They're both more powerful systems than the Wii, but who's winning the race? 'nuff said.



FJ-Warez on 23 July 2008
theraweness said:
Try comparing Killzone 2 to Gears 2. I mean just for fun.

Yeah just for fun:

Gears of War:

Announcement: E3 2005

Launch date: Nov 2006

Cost: 10 millions+20-30 persons working (Without counting the outsourcing engine adaptation from China)

 

Killzone 2:

Announcement: E3 2005

Launch date: Q1 2009

Cost: Rumored budget of 40 millions+120 persons working (Without counting the outsourcing AI)

 

Gears of War 2:

Announcement: Feb 2008

Launch date: Nov 2008

Cost: Unkwon But most likely similar to the first, worse case scenario the double...

 

So yeah, a very fair fight, so far Epic is going to launch 2 succesful titles and Guerrilla none... and they probably will make more money with one GeoW vs Killzone 2...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
Squilliam on 23 July 2008
taxman said:
Squilliam said:
taxman said:
Squilliam said:
taxman said:
Squilliam said:
Phendrana said:

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

You can give $100m to me if you want, I still won't make a good game. The budget doesn't mean that they utilised to PS3 to the max. They utilised it as far as they knew they could. That's why 1 party exclusives look 3x better....

 

Um Rockstar are a pretty good studio - they had seperate PS3/Xbox360 codepaths so they could run the game efficiently on both systems... Its as close to exclusive development you can get with multiplatform games...

 



Tease.

Around the Network
ChronotriggerJM on 23 July 2008
Squilliam said:

Um Rockstar are a pretty good studio - they had seperate PS3/Xbox360 codepaths so they could run the game efficiently on both systems... Its as close to exclusive development you can get with multiplatform games...

 

Why would you even pick rock-star as a company to compare technical advantage? Have they EVER been known to push technology? Let alone on a console that's notoriously difficult to work with >_>?

 



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

Zkuq on 23 July 2008

Hmm? Has anyone said PS3 > 360 AMT? I don't really know but I haven't seen anything like that being said. Right now the difference isn't big but I still believe we'll see a difference later during this generation and then it's going to be PS3 > 360. At the moment it's 360 > PS3 of course but it takes time to learn how to effectively use such a difficult hardware.



ChronotriggerJM on 23 July 2008
FJ-Warez said:
theraweness said:
Try comparing Killzone 2 to Gears 2. I mean just for fun.

Yeah just for fun:

Gears of War:

Announcement: E3 2005

Launch date: Nov 2006

Cost: 10 millions+20-30 persons working (Without counting the outsourcing engine adaptation from China)

 

Killzone 2:

Announcement: E3 2005

Launch date: Q1 2009

Cost: Rumored budget of 40 millions+120 persons working (Without counting the outsourcing AI)

 

Gears of War 2:

Announcement: Feb 2008

Launch date: Nov 2008

Cost: Unkwon But most likely similar to the first, worse case scenario the double...

 

So yeah, a very fair fight, so far Epic is going to launch 2 succesful titles and Guerrilla none... and they probably will make more money with one GeoW vs Killzone 2...

Yeah really fair comparison :P

Epic, using an engine they've been building and tweaking for the last....? Oh I dunno, when was Epic formed? On a system that's "Pc friendly!"

Or Gorilla games, the "laugh stock" for attempting to make a "halo killer", using an engine they built from the "Ground up" for the PS3 hardware which is supposedly "tough as hell to work on".

I'm sorry >_> But I can't buy this statement at all.

 



From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.

Squilliam on 23 July 2008
ChronotriggerJM said:
Oyvoyvoyv said:
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.

 

The point he's trying to prove, and the fact's he's pulling from don't support the claim though -_-; The fact's he's using prove that it's easier to program for, and cheaper to program for... We already knew this. The only way you'll get to see what a system is really capable of is via exclusives. And it's almost universally accepted that PS3 exclusives push the "cutting" edge. I don't wait for the next 360 game to showcase what consoles of this gen can do graphically, I don't wait for the 360 to see how rediculous the player counts can get up to for a multi-player game, I don't wait for the 360 to do anything as far as technology is concerned >_> In my opinion it's not the console holding the deck of cards.

Because the 360 is easier to work with, it will be 100% utilized long before the PS3 is, and in my opinion it's still playing catch up.

 

Huxley was announced wayyy before MAG <-- Similar player numbers, did you ignore it? Oh... Its only special when its announced for the PS3.

Also could you disprove this " Epic - If given the motivation and budget/time of Gearbox could produce a game thats the equall or better technically as Killzone 2" Which is precisely why using exclusives can be a bad idea for comparison. (Remember they did Gears 2 in less than 2 years, where Gearbox could have been working on Killzone 2 for almost 5 years by the time its released.)

 

 



Tease.

FJ-Warez on 23 July 2008
ChronotriggerJM said:
FJ-Warez said:
theraweness said:
Try comparing Killzone 2 to Gears 2. I mean just for fun.

Yeah just for fun:

Gears of War:

Announcement: E3 2005

Launch date: Nov 2006

Cost: 10 millions+20-30 persons working (Without counting the outsourcing engine adaptation from China)

 

Killzone 2:

Announcement: E3 2005

Launch date: Q1 2009

Cost: Rumored budget of 40 millions+120 persons working (Without counting the outsourcing AI)

 

Gears of War 2:

Announcement: Feb 2008

Launch date: Nov 2008

Cost: Unkwon But most likely similar to the first, worse case scenario the double...

 

So yeah, a very fair fight, so far Epic is going to launch 2 succesful titles and Guerrilla none... and they probably will make more money with one GeoW vs Killzone 2...

Yeah really fair comparison :P

Epic, using an engine they've been building and tweaking for the last....? Oh I dunno, when was Epic formed? On a system that's "Pc friendly!"

Or Gorilla games, the "laugh stock" for attempting to make a "halo killer", using an engine they built from the "Ground up" for the PS3 hardware which is supposedly "tough as hell to work on".

I'm sorry >_> But I can't buy this statement at all.

 

Thats my point two very different games, from two diferents aspects of development can´t be used to say which console is the best...

 



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."