mrstickball said: No. Microsoft instead used money to build a better system for the developer. Since it's easier to produce a high-quality game on, developers can spend more time on making it the superior version. Look at the cream of the crop PS3 games: They take far longer to make, and are far more costly than 360 games. That tells me that the development environment is preventing games from looking good without more resources being put on the project. The Sega Saturn was a bit better than the Playstation 1 from an ability standpoint, but the PS1 always saw better looking games - why? Because the Saturn was hard to develop for, and most just used one of the two cores, leaving games looking inferior. Despite that, first-party megagames like Shenmue looked brilliant in their alphas on the Saturn.

 

Shenmue was on the Saturn? With the 4MB cartrige introuduced with X-Men Vs Street Fighter games on Saturn could of looked better than ps1 but it was intrduced late in the systems life...though it was used for some games other than capcom fighting games

Zizzla_Rachet said: perpride said: Darc Requiem said: Wait, MS paid Sony to release a console with a complicated architecture and substandard development tools?   I highly doubt MS has sunk to that level. The differences between 85% of multiplatform games are so minute that most gamer wouldn't even notice it. Not to mention the fact that there are multiplatforms that run better on PS3 as well.   I think he was being sarcastic

 

I think I was too....fix your meter!

I don't think that's the case.

I do know they create closed tools which they hope developers become dependent on which are owned by Microsoft (Microsoft thus provides free dev tools and such for tech students), so they can become hard to port over to other systems. I know devs who ported many such games. It takes time and effort to make them suitable, but they were good devs, so often their games ran much better with lower spec hardware in the end.

Also one multi-platform developer:

"asset-wise 360 was around first, so we made stuff keeping the 360 in mind first."

"Secondly, the matters of multithreading policies, the whole job queue architecture, encapsulation of jobs and their corresponding data packets, etc. that work on the PS3 are indeed more than applicable of the 360/PC. And as I've mentioned before, they work better than anything and everything that Microsoft recommends (so far without exception for us)."

Killzone 2 was in development for 4 years to make it look that good, quite simply 3rd parties don't have that time and the 360 is easier to develop for so..

That's such a fanboyish statement..

um.. uh... yeah you got it....................

perpride said: Zizzla_Rachet said: perpride said: Darc Requiem said: Wait, MS paid Sony to release a console with a complicated architecture and substandard development tools?   I highly doubt MS has sunk to that level. The differences between 85% of multiplatform games are so minute that most gamer wouldn't even notice it. Not to mention the fact that there are multiplatforms that run better on PS3 as well.   I think he was being sarcastic   I think I was too....fix your meter!

I guess mine is broken too.

 

Darc Requiem said: Wait, MS paid Sony to release a console with a complicated architecture and substandard development tools?

 

 What this guy said.

Zizzla_Rachet said: mrstickball said: No. Microsoft instead used money to build a better system for the developer. Since it's easier to produce a high-quality game on, developers can spend more time on making it the superior version. Look at the cream of the crop PS3 games: They take far longer to make, and are far more costly than 360 games. That tells me that the development environment is preventing games from looking good without more resources being put on the project. The Sega Saturn was a bit better than the Playstation 1 from an ability standpoint, but the PS1 always saw better looking games - why? Because the Saturn was hard to develop for, and most just used one of the two cores, leaving games looking inferior. Despite that, first-party megagames like Shenmue looked brilliant in their alphas on the Saturn.   Shenmue was on the Saturn? With the 4MB cartrige introuduced with X-Men Vs Street Fighter games on Saturn could of looked better than ps1 but it was intrduced late in the systems life...though it was used for some games other than capcom fighting games

The initial build of Shenmue was on Saturn.

Of course, it got delayed, and put on the DC as opposed to the Saturn. Still, the video is stunning, given the fact that it was on the Saturn.

 

dib8rman said: OR it could just be what the developers were saying. They make their games on a PC at first and working with a 360 is equally as simple to work with. While Sony admitted that they made the Hardware without much consideration for the software.

          This in a nutshell...........

 

I would say:

"While Sony made the hardware without much consideration for legacy gaming engines and readily available tools."

Of course the hardware was designed with long term software progress in mind, optimised to be able to yield the most efficient results (with highly optimised gaming engines).

The Cell for example is far more efficient than common desktop processors regarding its available resources. Hence scientists have demonstrated near full Cell efficiency of its theoretical performance early on, also yielding near linear gains by adding more SPUs. That's far from the case for other mainstream processors.