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

Forums - Sony - Final Fantasy XIII aparently to use 100% of PS3's power

Euphoria14 on 31 March 2009

I thought this was a FFXIII using 100% of PS3 power thread?



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

Around the Network
selnor on 31 March 2009
perpride said:
blazinhead89 said:
selnor said:
blazinhead89 said:
It doesn't matter how powerful a system is , The GC was technically more powerful than PS2, but PS2 had games that looked better. Why? Because PS2 power was optimised more. So KZ2 can look better than Cryengine 3, as KZ2 optimises the strengths of the PS3 better (Atm anyway) . Cryengine 3 does things better than KZ2 Engine like Foliage, Water etc, But KZ2 engine does other things such as lighting, explosions, Animations etc better. Until we see KZ2 Engine do a forest area, we can only speculate what Engine is better in that type of environment.

 

 I cannot believe that people genuinely believe themselves when they say this.

CRYEnigine 2 beats KZ2 on every single front. Least because KZ2 cannot physically do DX10 lighting, effects, etc etc. CRYEngine 3 has further improved lighting, effects etc etc. I have never seen any explosion from a grenade or rocket launcher look anywhere near as the one in CRYEnigine 3. Anyone viewing CRYEnigine 3 physically running the demo on the console (at this point only 360 playable demo) says it's gobsmacking. And from what we have been alowed to see, it's stunning. Not the craptastic trailer, but the full fledged playable CRYEngine 3 demo. It wins so easily it's not funny.

Remember the bridge explosion in KZ2? The fully playable CRYEngine 3 demo shows us how an explosion on a bridge should be done. There is no contest it's funny. CRYEngine 3 is quite a way ahead. And I cant wait to see decent devs give us games on this engine. Hell yes.

 

Well, I'm gonna have to disagree. Both Technically and From an art direction point of view, the KZ2 Engine is superior (Atm imo ) . Of course I would love to be able to do a Comparison with Forest environment. KZ2 Engine Beats the Cryengine in Urban areas atm. I would also speculate that KZ2 Engine could give the Cryengine a run for it's money in a Forest environment.

Agreed. I've seen Crysis running on $1000 computer and not look as good as KZ2. Screenshots say differently, but I have yet to see a computer running the game looking that good. I don't know whether its the ussual exhagarration that they do with screenshots or whether there just isn't a GPU that Crysis will laugh at.

 

????

I seriously dont knowhat to say. I think PS3 is a great machine, but comments like this? I will just leave the thread. It makes me churn to hear fanboy comments like this. There is no point even discussing it. I'm truly lost for words. ( cue PC gamers the world over ROFL)

 



haxxiy on 31 March 2009
blazinhead89 said:
selnor said:
blazinhead89 said:
It doesn't matter how powerful a system is , The GC was technically more powerful than PS2, but PS2 had games that looked better. Why? Because PS2 power was optimised more. So KZ2 can look better than Cryengine 3, as KZ2 optimises the strengths of the PS3 better (Atm anyway) . Cryengine 3 does things better than KZ2 Engine like Foliage, Water etc, But KZ2 engine does other things such as lighting, explosions, Animations etc better. Until we see KZ2 Engine do a forest area, we can only speculate what Engine is better in that type of environment.

 

 I cannot believe that people genuinely believe themselves when they say this.

CRYEnigine 2 beats KZ2 on every single front. Least because KZ2 cannot physically do DX10 lighting, effects, etc etc. CRYEngine 3 has further improved lighting, effects etc etc. I have never seen any explosion from a grenade or rocket launcher look anywhere near as the one in CRYEnigine 3. Anyone viewing CRYEnigine 3 physically running the demo on the console (at this point only 360 playable demo) says it's gobsmacking. And from what we have been alowed to see, it's stunning. Not the craptastic trailer, but the full fledged playable CRYEngine 3 demo. It wins so easily it's not funny.

Remember the bridge explosion in KZ2? The fully playable CRYEngine 3 demo shows us how an explosion on a bridge should be done. There is no contest it's funny. CRYEngine 3 is quite a way ahead. And I cant wait to see decent devs give us games on this engine. Hell yes.

 

Well, I'm gonna have to disagree. Both Technically and From an art direction point of view, the KZ2 Engine is superior (Atm imo ) . Of course I would love to be able to do a Comparison with Forest environment. KZ2 Engine Beats the Cryengine in Urban areas atm. I would also speculate that KZ2 Engine could give the Cryengine a run for it's money in a Forest environment.

 

Even the unreal 3 on Gears 2/Mirror's Edge have better urban environments than the CE3 demo. Seriously the thing is optmized for forest and alike environments, not much more.



 

 

 

 

 

SnakeEyez on 31 March 2009

Wow, this thread sure was derailed. Anyways, I'm pretty sure that there will be a Mandatory of atleast 5gbs for the PS3 version, and atleast 3 CDs in the 360 version. Oh and that 100% of the PS3 comment is pure BS. The only thing good that came out of saying that, is that the OP embedded "Push it to the limit" which I'm currently jamming to :)



NNN2004 on 31 March 2009
CGI-Quality said:
NNN2004 said:

haha the PS3 cell power is a myth after all .. now if the 360 version work better then all sony fans should never talk about the ps3 power again. 

I'm curious about this "myth" you speak of. Explain it....

The cell is powerful, there's no myth to it. The 360 is also powerful, just leave it at that.

ok but its start to annoy me that there is still some fanboys here claim that Killzone 2 graphics is better than crysis !  man its like directx 9.0 vs directx 10 .. its geforce 7800 vs 280 ... am sure no one of this fans saw Crysis run with maximum settings at 1080p.

 



Around the Network
NNN2004 on 31 March 2009
CGI-Quality said:
NNN2004 said:
CGI-Quality said:
NNN2004 said:

haha the PS3 cell power is a myth after all .. now if the 360 version work better then all sony fans should never talk about the ps3 power again. 

I'm curious about this "myth" you speak of. Explain it....

The cell is powerful, there's no myth to it. The 360 is also powerful, just leave it at that.

ok but its start to annoy me that there is still some fanboys here claim that Killzone 2 graphics is better than crysis !  man its like directx 9.0 vs directx 10 .. its geforce 7800 vs 280 ... am sure no one of this fans saw Crysis run with maximum settings at 1080p.

 

It's just as annoying to watch a Final Fantasy XIII thread get derailed with pointless "KZ2 vs Crysis" chatter. Beyond that, this thread was never about PS3 vs 360 either that's annoying as well. It doesn't matter who brought it up, it's still annoying.

OT: I have high hopes for Final Fantasy XIII, and if it is taking advantage of the PS3, since that's the version I'm buying, than I hope it's the best it can be.

 

lol true

 



Aldro on 31 March 2009

Lol like most people I have to agree, its BS. Doubt any game will ever do 100% on ANY console..

''Because FF7 used 100% of the first PS ? Excuse me, but it was a real average game technically. Otherwise, FF9 used 200 % ?? Same with FF10, it is inferior to FF12 technically (less than tthe contrast between 7 and 9 of course)''

+1



radha on 31 March 2009

to those comparing killzon2 to crysis, there is a greater technical achievement in doing more with less, its possible to build a pc that can render finding nemo in real time, but that is not better engineering than been able to render it in a average pc, that means if crysis looks like pixar's movies but it requires a cold fusion generator, it has less engineering than killzone 2 that is doing a lot on a US$500 console even if crysis does looks better, just like an iphone is more technically advance than my PC even if the iphone cant multitask



dd if = /dev/brain | tail -f | grep games | nc -lnvvp 80

Hey Listen!

https://archive.org/details/kohina_radio_music_collection

perpride on 31 March 2009
selnor said:
perpride said:
blazinhead89 said:
selnor said:
blazinhead89 said:
It doesn't matter how powerful a system is , The GC was technically more powerful than PS2, but PS2 had games that looked better. Why? Because PS2 power was optimised more. So KZ2 can look better than Cryengine 3, as KZ2 optimises the strengths of the PS3 better (Atm anyway) . Cryengine 3 does things better than KZ2 Engine like Foliage, Water etc, But KZ2 engine does other things such as lighting, explosions, Animations etc better. Until we see KZ2 Engine do a forest area, we can only speculate what Engine is better in that type of environment.

 

 I cannot believe that people genuinely believe themselves when they say this.

CRYEnigine 2 beats KZ2 on every single front. Least because KZ2 cannot physically do DX10 lighting, effects, etc etc. CRYEngine 3 has further improved lighting, effects etc etc. I have never seen any explosion from a grenade or rocket launcher look anywhere near as the one in CRYEnigine 3. Anyone viewing CRYEnigine 3 physically running the demo on the console (at this point only 360 playable demo) says it's gobsmacking. And from what we have been alowed to see, it's stunning. Not the craptastic trailer, but the full fledged playable CRYEngine 3 demo. It wins so easily it's not funny.

Remember the bridge explosion in KZ2? The fully playable CRYEngine 3 demo shows us how an explosion on a bridge should be done. There is no contest it's funny. CRYEngine 3 is quite a way ahead. And I cant wait to see decent devs give us games on this engine. Hell yes.

 

Well, I'm gonna have to disagree. Both Technically and From an art direction point of view, the KZ2 Engine is superior (Atm imo ) . Of course I would love to be able to do a Comparison with Forest environment. KZ2 Engine Beats the Cryengine in Urban areas atm. I would also speculate that KZ2 Engine could give the Cryengine a run for it's money in a Forest environment.

Agreed. I've seen Crysis running on $1000 computer and not look as good as KZ2. Screenshots say differently, but I have yet to see a computer running the game looking that good. I don't know whether its the ussual exhagarration that they do with screenshots or whether there just isn't a GPU that Crysis will laugh at.

 

????

I seriously dont knowhat to say. I think PS3 is a great machine, but comments like this? I will just leave the thread. It makes me churn to hear fanboy comments like this. There is no point even discussing it. I'm truly lost for words. ( cue PC gamers the world over ROFL)

 

This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war.

 



Aldro on 31 March 2009
perpride said:
selnor said:
perpride said:
blazinhead89 said:
selnor said:
blazinhead89 said:
It doesn't matter how powerful a system is , The GC was technically more powerful than PS2, but PS2 had games that looked better. Why? Because PS2 power was optimised more. So KZ2 can look better than Cryengine 3, as KZ2 optimises the strengths of the PS3 better (Atm anyway) . Cryengine 3 does things better than KZ2 Engine like Foliage, Water etc, But KZ2 engine does other things such as lighting, explosions, Animations etc better. Until we see KZ2 Engine do a forest area, we can only speculate what Engine is better in that type of environment.

 

 I cannot believe that people genuinely believe themselves when they say this.

CRYEnigine 2 beats KZ2 on every single front. Least because KZ2 cannot physically do DX10 lighting, effects, etc etc. CRYEngine 3 has further improved lighting, effects etc etc. I have never seen any explosion from a grenade or rocket launcher look anywhere near as the one in CRYEnigine 3. Anyone viewing CRYEnigine 3 physically running the demo on the console (at this point only 360 playable demo) says it's gobsmacking. And from what we have been alowed to see, it's stunning. Not the craptastic trailer, but the full fledged playable CRYEngine 3 demo. It wins so easily it's not funny.

Remember the bridge explosion in KZ2? The fully playable CRYEngine 3 demo shows us how an explosion on a bridge should be done. There is no contest it's funny. CRYEngine 3 is quite a way ahead. And I cant wait to see decent devs give us games on this engine. Hell yes.

 

Well, I'm gonna have to disagree. Both Technically and From an art direction point of view, the KZ2 Engine is superior (Atm imo ) . Of course I would love to be able to do a Comparison with Forest environment. KZ2 Engine Beats the Cryengine in Urban areas atm. I would also speculate that KZ2 Engine could give the Cryengine a run for it's money in a Forest environment.

Agreed. I've seen Crysis running on $1000 computer and not look as good as KZ2. Screenshots say differently, but I have yet to see a computer running the game looking that good. I don't know whether its the ussual exhagarration that they do with screenshots or whether there just isn't a GPU that Crysis will laugh at.

 

????

I seriously dont knowhat to say. I think PS3 is a great machine, but comments like this? I will just leave the thread. It makes me churn to hear fanboy comments like this. There is no point even discussing it. I'm truly lost for words. ( cue PC gamers the world over ROFL)

 

This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war.

 

You read my mind ^.