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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Madden comparison: PS3 vs 360

endimion on 10 August 2007

great great demo entroper and oli2, I learned a couple thing there.....



Around the Network
friedtofu on 10 August 2007
leo-j said:
omgwtfbbq said:
I'm sick of this "Lazy Developers" bullshit. Developers are not lazy. They can only work so much because they have a job that they are paid to do. If the publisher doesn't give them enough time and money then they're not going to be able to make the game as great. You can't expect them to work without being paid surely.

You say the words as if the developers simply decided to sit and eat donuts rather than work. I'm sure none of you know about software development but the simple fact is the money has to come from somewhere and it comes from the publishers. If they don't provide enough money, then the developers have to ration it, and things like getting the PS3 version up to 60fps take a back seat to getting the 360 version looking good since that will be the version that sells the most.

So EVERYBODY, please stop saying "Lazy Developers". It just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Listen, when sony was addressed of why the madden version of the 360 will run at 60fps and there's wont they said " Its not our hardware, the system is fine, its just that the developers(not trying to be harsh) dont spend more time building the ps3 version of the game, it can run at 60fps its just that they DONT want it to run at 60fps, we would like to help them in this situation, if they ask for it."In other words they are lazy and they are money hungry freaks that make the best things to the console with the most install base. Yes sony did say this but unliucky for me I cant find the artivle it was a gamespot interview.


Uhh ok. Normally I dont respond to your ridiculous comments. But I will this time.

Did you ever think the developers arent the ones calling the shots? They dont go, "hey lets just port this, its easier and we can go on vacation sooner. When its done we will tell the publisher its finished and lets all go fishing after we pick up our bonus checks!"

When you are a corporate entity time and money is what matters most.They have deadlines. If a game is already developed for one platform and they need to push it to another platform, and there is a deadline then sacrifices will be made. Its not just true for ports but for original titles as well.

Why do you think most movie games suck? They time the release of the game with the movie, and the developers basically need to crank a game out by then. Are the developers lazy? No. They are just doing a job.

Now if EA wanted to do this right, they could probably invest a lot more time and money into the PS3 version and get it running better. But Im pretty sure they just need it out at a certain date.

Geez.



PS360 ftw!

Currently playing..........

Gears of War 2, GTA IV Lost and Damned, Little Big Planet (Yes I said I had no interest but my girl wanted to try it and we did and now Im hooked )

 

 

LordTheNightKnight on 11 August 2007
Diomedes1976 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Diomedes1976 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
The 360 has its frame buffer set aside from the 512MB of RAM. The PS3 has to share its frame buffer within the 512MB of RAM.

Go ahead and think that won't affect performance in identical situations. It won't actually make that effect go away.

Yeah ,and the 360 shares its only data bus for the GPU and the CPU while the PS3 has 4 data bus connecting each Ram unit (256Mb each ) to both the GPU and the CPU .


That doesn't give the PS3 greater performance. It's not the number of buses, but the bandwidth and clock speed, which is nearly the same on both (mostly; the PS3's system RAM has a greater clock speed, but that's nullified by the slower latency*).

 

*That was deliberate. That kind of RAM is great for FMVs (DVD and blu-ray playback), but not so great for graphics.


3 out of the 4 buses of the PS3 have the same bandwith(or greater ) as the only one in the 360 .Only the bus connecting the Cell to the RSX memory bank its a lot slower .Once you have everything in count the PS3 bandwith is way greater .Its only one data ,but I bringed it because in the FUD books of Sony-bashing theres hardly any good consideration about the PS3 and bad about the 360.Normal ,seeing what type of autodenominated "experts " are churning out these "analysis " .


 I agree it will give processors on the PS3 easier access to the memory, but that's not the same as what can be held in the memory itself. Basically, the PS3 has 80% of the memory of the 360. That isn't FUD. It isn't bashing the system. It just means that sometimes otherwise identical games will need to drop something (such as framerate, draw distance, or resolution) on the PS3, even if can generate better graphics.

 And the football games doing this don't seem to push the systems that far, but what increases a system's graphics in later years is usually resource optimization*, which is still early on both systems.

 

 *An example is MGS2 vs MGS3. Both used all the processing power, and all the memory, but 2 looked like an advanced version of MGS1, not just in deliberate art direction, but in the way the models looked. MGS3 looked far more advanced, but within the same limits of the PS2, simply by the developers using the PS2 more effectively.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs