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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - So I have a PS3...have Uncharted and MGS4...and the saw a HD video of GOW2

mrstickball on 10 November 2008

I should of corrected myself on that one. The Playstation 2 wasn't that great to develop for due to 2 processors, but it at least had a major incentive to put out top-tier games: user base.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
dbot on 10 November 2008
mrstickball said:
As a X360 owner, I think it's hard to argue that the X360 will always have the 'better looking' games, or 'equivalent looking' games. When you look at the specs, the fact is, the Playstation 3 is better on paper - Blu-Ray, 8 SPEs. Things like that make it impossible to say that "in 4 years, games will still look the same on both systems".

Ultimately, the Playstation 3 will have the better graphics. But I agree with your statement: At what costs?

The problem with the PS3 is that it IS a nightmare to develop for. Games are constantly being delayed due to developmental woes, projects are becoming costly, and in general, it's just a bad system to develop for (not to mention the actual return on your investment vs. the Wii and X360).

Because of that, we're going to see a split in the future of what gets greenlit for the Playstation 3. There may be better 'blockbuster' MGS4-esque uber-exclusives, but they will suffer in cost, development, and rarity.

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

TKC-Muzzer on 10 November 2008

I have both Uncharted and GOW2 and Uncharted looks slightly better, mainly because of the vistas (scenery) it uses. But i believe Killzone 2 is about to raise the bar for graphics on and offline, i am not allowed to say why i think this ;)



TKC-Muzzer on 10 November 2008
mrstickball said:
I should of corrected myself on that one. The Playstation 2 wasn't that great to develop for due to 2 processors, but it at least had a major incentive to put out top-tier games: user base.

Eh! the PS2's user base was the PS1 and so the PS3 user base is the PS2, i don't know what your saying. The PS2 sold slower than the PS3 so it's initial user base was lower. Stop it your confusing everyone. Like everything it's only when developers get a grip do things start to show. If Sony knocked £100 of the PS3 to compete with the 360 it would kill it especially in Europe. Sony have one important thing over MS and that is brand quality. People trust Sony's qulaity, as has been seen with MS, no one trusts the quality of their products.

 



twesterm on 10 November 2008
dbot said:
mrstickball said:
As a X360 owner, I think it's hard to argue that the X360 will always have the 'better looking' games, or 'equivalent looking' games. When you look at the specs, the fact is, the Playstation 3 is better on paper - Blu-Ray, 8 SPEs. Things like that make it impossible to say that "in 4 years, games will still look the same on both systems".

Ultimately, the Playstation 3 will have the better graphics. But I agree with your statement: At what costs?

The problem with the PS3 is that it IS a nightmare to develop for. Games are constantly being delayed due to developmental woes, projects are becoming costly, and in general, it's just a bad system to develop for (not to mention the actual return on your investment vs. the Wii and X360).

Because of that, we're going to see a split in the future of what gets greenlit for the Playstation 3. There may be better 'blockbuster' MGS4-esque uber-exclusives, but they will suffer in cost, development, and rarity.

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 

You should probably be able to figure that one out by common sense.

I don't know the development cycle for Gears, but Gears 2 was two years.  How long was MGS4?  Five at least?

 



 

Around the Network
rocketpig on 10 November 2008
twesterm said:
dbot said:
mrstickball said:
As a X360 owner, I think it's hard to argue that the X360 will always have the 'better looking' games, or 'equivalent looking' games. When you look at the specs, the fact is, the Playstation 3 is better on paper - Blu-Ray, 8 SPEs. Things like that make it impossible to say that "in 4 years, games will still look the same on both systems".

Ultimately, the Playstation 3 will have the better graphics. But I agree with your statement: At what costs?

The problem with the PS3 is that it IS a nightmare to develop for. Games are constantly being delayed due to developmental woes, projects are becoming costly, and in general, it's just a bad system to develop for (not to mention the actual return on your investment vs. the Wii and X360).

Because of that, we're going to see a split in the future of what gets greenlit for the Playstation 3. There may be better 'blockbuster' MGS4-esque uber-exclusives, but they will suffer in cost, development, and rarity.

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 

You should probably be able to figure that one out by common sense.

I don't know the development cycle for Gears, but Gears 2 was two years.  How long was MGS4?  Five at least?

Shit, Gears 2 didn't even have a two year cycle. I doubt work started on the second game the moment they finished the first (a month or two before release). They probably gave the team some time off before starting work on the second game.

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

twesterm on 10 November 2008
rocketpig said:
twesterm said:
dbot said:
mrstickball said:
As a X360 owner, I think it's hard to argue that the X360 will always have the 'better looking' games, or 'equivalent looking' games. When you look at the specs, the fact is, the Playstation 3 is better on paper - Blu-Ray, 8 SPEs. Things like that make it impossible to say that "in 4 years, games will still look the same on both systems".

Ultimately, the Playstation 3 will have the better graphics. But I agree with your statement: At what costs?

The problem with the PS3 is that it IS a nightmare to develop for. Games are constantly being delayed due to developmental woes, projects are becoming costly, and in general, it's just a bad system to develop for (not to mention the actual return on your investment vs. the Wii and X360).

Because of that, we're going to see a split in the future of what gets greenlit for the Playstation 3. There may be better 'blockbuster' MGS4-esque uber-exclusives, but they will suffer in cost, development, and rarity.

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 

You should probably be able to figure that one out by common sense.

I don't know the development cycle for Gears, but Gears 2 was two years.  How long was MGS4?  Five at least?

Shit, Gears 2 didn't even have a two year cycle. I doubt work started on the second game the moment they finished the first (a month or two before release). They probably gave the team some time off before starting work on the second game.

 

 

I like keeping things general, I would rather say two years than 21 months.  Two years is an estimate, 21 months is exact. 



 

Jo21 on 10 November 2008
rocketpig said:
twesterm said:
dbot said:
mrstickball said:
As a X360 owner, I think it's hard to argue that the X360 will always have the 'better looking' games, or 'equivalent looking' games. When you look at the specs, the fact is, the Playstation 3 is better on paper - Blu-Ray, 8 SPEs. Things like that make it impossible to say that "in 4 years, games will still look the same on both systems".

Ultimately, the Playstation 3 will have the better graphics. But I agree with your statement: At what costs?

The problem with the PS3 is that it IS a nightmare to develop for. Games are constantly being delayed due to developmental woes, projects are becoming costly, and in general, it's just a bad system to develop for (not to mention the actual return on your investment vs. the Wii and X360).

Because of that, we're going to see a split in the future of what gets greenlit for the Playstation 3. There may be better 'blockbuster' MGS4-esque uber-exclusives, but they will suffer in cost, development, and rarity.

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 

You should probably be able to figure that one out by common sense.

I don't know the development cycle for Gears, but Gears 2 was two years.  How long was MGS4?  Five at least?

Shit, Gears 2 didn't even have a two year cycle. I doubt work started on the second game the moment they finished the first (a month or two before release). They probably gave the team some time off before starting work on the second game.

 

four years. they said when interviewed

actually they started worked in the title 2 years.

the first 2 years was just trying stuff building the engine.

considering gears 2 use unreal engine 3, it took almost the same amount of time to make

 



4lc0h0l on 10 November 2008

i dont care for graphics better than what they have achive at the moment for the ps3 and 360 just enhance the gameplay and make them good looking as they are doing them now, i dont need better graphics than Gears 2, MGS4, uncharted, Killzone2, they are fine in graphical terms. I think that at those graphics gameplay plays a much bigger role.. lets just say it wii graphics are horrible, artisticly they are cool but man they are pretty bad, but when u get graphics like KZ2 and Gears 2 do you really need a lot more?? in my opinion its just fine with those graphics

stop fighting for stupid none noticable graphics and just enjoy the games



twesterm on 10 November 2008
Jo21 said:
rocketpig said:
twesterm said:
dbot said:
mrstickball said:
As a X360 owner, I think it's hard to argue that the X360 will always have the 'better looking' games, or 'equivalent looking' games. When you look at the specs, the fact is, the Playstation 3 is better on paper - Blu-Ray, 8 SPEs. Things like that make it impossible to say that "in 4 years, games will still look the same on both systems".

Ultimately, the Playstation 3 will have the better graphics. But I agree with your statement: At what costs?

The problem with the PS3 is that it IS a nightmare to develop for. Games are constantly being delayed due to developmental woes, projects are becoming costly, and in general, it's just a bad system to develop for (not to mention the actual return on your investment vs. the Wii and X360).

Because of that, we're going to see a split in the future of what gets greenlit for the Playstation 3. There may be better 'blockbuster' MGS4-esque uber-exclusives, but they will suffer in cost, development, and rarity.

Food for thought: Gears of War 1 + 2 were made for less money than Metal Gear Solid 4 or Killzone 2. Which games, do you think, earned a better return, and will have a higher probability of seeing sequels? (Of course, KZ2 hasn't come out, but the deck is stacked against it in some ways).

Link it please.

 

You should probably be able to figure that one out by common sense.

I don't know the development cycle for Gears, but Gears 2 was two years.  How long was MGS4?  Five at least?

Shit, Gears 2 didn't even have a two year cycle. I doubt work started on the second game the moment they finished the first (a month or two before release). They probably gave the team some time off before starting work on the second game.

 

four years. they said when interviewed

actually they started worked in the title 2 years.

the first 2 years was just trying stuff building the engine.

considering gears 2 use unreal engine 3, it took almost the same amount of time to make

 

 

I would imagine the first year was spent on the engine more than Gears with another 3 on the game.  So there was some preproduction stuff going on for Gears but it was probably a 3 year project.  I don't really see why you think Gears 2 would be longer than 2 years though. 

Again, they might have been doing some pre production stuff like documentation and probably some concept art but actual production didn't start until Gears 1 was out the door.