According to the ps blog, browsing through I found that somone asked about the statement ubisoft said that "ps3 cant handle AI as well as 360", believe it or not a sony employe responded.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/08/13/ps3-stress-test/#comments

"@Free — PS3 can more than handle AI, as you will see with Heavenly Sword, which has hundreds of on-screen enemies with different AI routines at one time thanks to the power of CELL."

Wierd huh? So is it just me or is ubisoft talking BS?

Who cares? The PS3's AI is good enough, as seen in Resistance and Ninja Gaiden. As long as the AI is good enough for you to enjoy the game it doesn't matter how it compares to the 360. The PS3 is a great, powerful console that can do alot of cool things.

actually its just you. In the original forum about this i posted an article that explains the technical aspect of the two consoles. It determines that the ps3 has a better theoretical graphics capability (so enjoy that when it arrives in 2011) but that as fantastic as its AI abilities are, its not built for the same AI capabilities of the xbox 360. The sony man is wrong or lying, Ubisoft is an independant developer doing exclusives for both platforms

found the article leo, its long, but its good.
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

This really didn't need a separate thread. Shams and other posters with programming knowledge already chimed in about this subject in the original thread.

The PS3 has the power, but it's more difficult to program, especially for AI routines that are designed to be single threaded. It's not entirely BS, howerver an more accurate statement would be the Ubisoft programmers are lazy and it's just easier to do it on the 360... With the PS3, you have to figure out how to have different parts of the AI work together on different parts of the problem. With the 360, you can get by with one monolith program. and it will run fast. If you can't figure out how to split up the problem, then the 360 will be faster.

It isn't a matter of "telling the truth" or "lying" as much as it is particular developer's opinions ...

Ubisoft tends to use a lot of middleware which may or may not be well optimized for use on the PS3; the developer of that middleware may have made assumptions on its use which will impact performance in various ways.

It is likely that Ubisoft is using the Unreal 3 engine and it is possible that the scripting in this engine does not take much (any) advantage of the SPEs; the end result is scripting (AI) would generally take far longer to process in the PS3 version of a game than the XBox 360 version of the game.

Obviously Sony developers wouldn't have issues because they are focused entirely on the PS3 version of the game, any middleware they have the source for can be modified to increase performance on the PS3 (something you wouldn't want to do if you were producing multiplatform games), and they will have access to engineers who can help them optimize everything.

I expect every console to be able to handle AI that is not the question. The question is which system is better at it. Which system is more flexible and allows for more actions. The poster in question side stepped the question. Notice they did not say the PS3 is better. They simply said the system can handle AI. My N64 could handle AI too. Without any definitive statement you have nothing.

Artificial intelligence is less a issue of technology strength, and more one of technological flexibility. For instance you can run Avida on a ten year old computer, and nothing on the consoles really approaches the kind of power that Avida displays. We have yet to see artificial intelligence show a non predetermined curve. Perhaps developers fear the results.

I have no idea which console is more capable. However were I to guess where you will find better AI I would go with Microsoft. They after all are developing robotics operating systems, and developer tools for the purposes of remote artificial intelligence. They are working on the problem outside of their game division so there is a added bonus in the field of experience. Microsoft is pushing the boundaries much farther then Sony is in this area.

This might very well be true, although it should be noted that the Splinter Cell games require much more complex AI than an FPS like Resistance, or a hack 'n slash like Heavenly Sword.

Look pretty clear to me that the whole "complaint" arose from the Cell being hard to code for, and Ubisoft rather blaming Sony than themselves. The question is: If a provenly competent developer has trouble making software for the manufacturer's hardware, is it the fault of the software, or the hardware guys? The other has the responsibilty to provide usable hardware, while the other's job is to beat the challenges and provide the games.

What a coincidence that people tend to side with the one they like the most. =P

A Sony employee said it so it has to be true!

/sarcasm