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

Forums - Microsoft - Carmack: Rage runs faster on Xbox 360

Squilliam on 09 August 2009
Ultibankai said:

Let me just say this "RAZurrection"....at the moment, the PS3 is the reigning champion of consoles, in terms of graphics and technical achievements, and may I remind you that it is not yet 3 years old. If that is not a testament to it's capabilities, for now and in the future, I do not know what you would call it. Basically, do not dismiss the PS3 before it can truly be harnessed. Of course, this goes to the 360 as well;however, that isn't the problem here. You are incriminating the PS3 for holding back Rage, yet you dismiss the problems that have arisen from developing on the 360.

Yes, that's right, if you think the development is all roses when it comes to Rage on the 360, you are terribly mistaken. As stated in the interview, it is having texture resolution problems.
Note: Resolution problems on the 360 are as big a problem, as frame rate problems on the PS3. Fair share of troubles, no?

PS: I no longer wish to debate this RAZ, this is my stance, and I am sticking to it!

Actually its a latency/streaming issue.



Tease.

Around the Network
Ultibankai on 09 August 2009

^^Thanks Squill. Still fair share of troubles though...lol.




               

                  

headshot91 on 10 August 2009
RAZurrection said:
selnor said:

Like I said Carmack knows what he's talking about. Rage looks better than anything else on console by some way. Look at this brand new screenshot. Maybe people should listen to him about PS3 power.

Wow. That is amazing. It's astonishing to think that our lord and savior the great JC can coax such legendary visuals across multiple platforms at a bench setting 60fps, open world, split-screen while other developers -developing exclusively -  can't even do half that!
Ultibankai said:

So basically what you're saying is, the PS3 is the weakest link, right? 

Carmacks saying that apparently.

Ultibankai said:

And how did you come to this conclusion? Nothing on the 360, (at least at the moment), looks as good as Killzone 2 or the soon to come Uncharted 2.

Rage looks and runs better than both, especially Uncharted 2 which looks identical to Uncharted 1.

Ultibankai said:

  And going further by your reasoning, the 360 should also not have any methods to help in it's development, right?

Why does the 360 version need help? It's running at a solid 60fps like it's high-end PC counterpart...a year before release as Carmack and God intended, this is why no-one is making excuses like "if only Carmack got help from MS 1st and second party developers blah, blah, blah"" because... its a reality.

Ultibankai said:

Carmack said that at the end of development, both consoles would be even.

And you can keep hoping that it will, in the interim we PC & Xbox hardcorites will revel in TRURAGISM knowing that ours with certainty, does, if the PS3 ever makes it, we'll make space.

Ultibankai said:

That was so sneaky of you, trying in a roundabout way to downplay the achievements and capabilities of the PS3, while uplifting the 360.

You're the one suggesting that a team that's built an engine far beyond any of Sonys exclusive offerings needs to do things differently, just because the PS3 isn't keeping up for these 5th/6th generation engines (it's been coming for a while now though). All i'm saying is that they really don't, because from the 1st party stuff as has been shown so far (released and unreleased) there's nothing that remotely comes close, let alone with 60fps, open world split-screen caveats.

headshot91 said:

A longer singleplayer than uncharted

Uncharted was a short game anyway, to be longer than it is not exactly pushing the envelope.

What?! it took close to two years to develop the oringals singleplayer, and to increase that while keeping gameplay and bettering graphics is a great achievement.

headshot91 said:

Seperate co-operative missions

LAZY! A not lazy developer would have the full campaign as co-op, rather then a multi-player mode that can be played co-operatively.

Surely its more hassle to create new missions (and there are many) from scratch than putting co-op in the main game. Besides its not them being lazy, the story would not have worked if there were always 3 people playing(same with modern warfare 2. are you going to say their game will be badd???)

headshot91 said:

A MASSIVE improvement in both artistic (i think) and technical (Proven) prowess compared to uncharted 1.

Looks just like Uncharted 1 with motion-blur really, Edge magazine agrees too. THIS IS almost peurile. Uncharted 2 has had a MASSIVE overhaul and besides edge got their original build play in november 08, they have DEFINIETLY increased the fidelity since then. Go onto a technology site like digital foundry and search uncharted 2, they say its an amazing improvement.

headshot91 said:

In game gameplay recording feature.

Fair enough.

headshot91 said:

10 player multiplayer

LAZY! A multi-player mode should have been in the original in the first place, this is just an example ND not being as lazy as when they made Drakes Fortune . Hell even Dark Sector has a multi-player mode FFS, it's a standard really. It least in non-Sony games.

 

No way. So youre now saying theyre not lazy? Just because they wanted to concentrate on the singleplayer and did not multiplayer doesnt mean theyre lazy. Its not really like an fps, where most games have it. TPS are much rarer if they have multiplayer

headshot91 said:

you said that about 3 months ago when none of these features were implemented and youre still saying it? Your statement is wrong, end of story.

Uh, i'm sure I was familiar with all of those features back then, it's very bare minimum stuff, very lazy.

YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THEM THREE MONTHS AGO BECAUSE HTE IN GAME RECORDING FEATURE, AND MULTIP[LAYER WERE NOT ANNOUNCED TILL LATE MAY!

 

Here's what they need to do to not be lazy -

*Implement full Campaign co-op play with split-screen support (including system link and Online)

*Implement split-screen support for the already existing multi-player modes (including system link and Online)

Pretty straight forward no? Gears 1 & 2 did it, Resident Evil 5 does it, no reason for Uncharted 2 not to do it...unless the PS3 is maxed out ...or Naughty Dog are just lazier then Epic and Capcom. i HOPE YOU NOW REALISE THEYRE NOT LAZY!

 



joshin69 on 10 August 2009

As i remember it, just after this came out the dev made a statement claiming that all versions of the game would run at 60fps regardless?



 

 assumption is the mother of all f**k ups 

heruamon on 10 August 2009

I can't WAIT for this game for the 360!



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

Around the Network
RAZurrection on 13 August 2009

Ultibankai said:

Let me just say this "RAZurrection"....at the moment, the PS3 is the reigning champion of consoles, in terms of graphics and technical achievements, and may I remind you that it is not yet 3 years old.

LOL. Why do you quotation my handle, like it has a second meaning? You need to be forward thinking with these things. Hows it going to look when Rage comes out, looks/runs worse on PS3 and no other PS3 game comes close? It's going to just confirm that the PS3 is less powerful, interestingly enough, this is becoming more evident in the long-term.

Ultibankai said:

Basically, do not dismiss the PS3 before it can truly be harnessed.

Sounds like you're just making excuses because the PS3 isn't as futureproofed to run next-gen engines like Tech5 as well as the 360 is. Just ...keep...waiting.

Ultibankai said:

If that is not a testament to it's capabilities, for now and in the future, I do not know what you would call it.

How is a 3 year old system running an inferior version of the best looking console game a testement to it's capabilities in any positive way compared to say the 4 year old system that runs it better?

Ultibankai said:

Note: Resolution problems on the 360 are as big a problem, as frame rate problems on the PS3. Fair share of troubles, no?

From the interview I don't see how the PS3 version having the same issues and looking to run at a lower frame rater is shared fairly, if anything this just confirms that these problems are compounding. At least the 360 is at 60fps, the PS3 isn't even there yet. Unbelievable.

headshot91 said:

 What?! it took close to two years to develop the oringals singleplayer, and to increase that while keeping gameplay and bettering graphics is a great achievement.

And? 2 years is a standard development cycle these days. Doesn't stop other, less lazy developers from delivering even bigger improvements.

headshot91 said:

Surely its more hassle to create new missions (and there are many) from scratch than putting co-op in the main game. Besides its not them being lazy, the story would not have worked if there were always 3 people playing(same with modern warfare 2. are you going to say their game will be badd???)

Nope, cutting out a few random multi-player maps and giving them a random objectives (e.g. find the treasure) that can be played co-operatively is LAZY, lazy work. That's like Epic, completely removing the campaign co-op from Gears of War 2 on the excuse that it has Horde mode.

Doesn't look like it would affect the campaign either, since every other screen shot they have a secondary character involved. My guess is they tried to get it in originally (like in Killzone 2 where you always have a team-mate) but didn't bother seeing it through due to lazyness. It's not like it needs to be canonical at any rate, it's not like there are supposed to be 2 Master Chiefs either, but every Halo game goes this extra distance.

While i'm sure MW2 will be good, it would be even better with real campaign co-op, IW just being lazy in this regard and the backlash will be moderate to say the least.

headshot91 said:

THIS IS almost peurile. Uncharted 2 has had a MASSIVE overhaul and besides edge got their original build play in november 08, they have DEFINIETLY increased the fidelity since then. Go onto a technology site like digital foundry and search uncharted 2, they say its an amazing improvement.

Edge refers to  the E3 build and the multi-player beta. They say it looks essentially the same with a few new effects. Having played the first game and the beta i'd have to agree. Hell Uncharted only got a 9.0 at IGN on the graphics section (in comparison to 10.0 for Gears 1 & MGS4 and 9.5 for Gears 2, Killzone and RE5) so apparently, it never really looked that good in the first place, i'd put most of it down to insane Playstation hyperbole that has no basis in reality.

headshot91 said:

No way. So youre now saying theyre not lazy? Just because they wanted to concentrate on the singleplayer and did not multiplayer doesnt mean theyre lazy. Its not really like an fps, where most games have it. TPS are much rarer if they have multiplayer

They were lazy when they made UDF because it had no multi amidst a plethora of games that went the distance and did both. They are being lazy now because they're finally doing multi (catching up to 2 years ago) but its a poor-mans multi. The big thing these days is campaign co-op with split-screen options. I mean that's what MS and third parties are doing, it's the bare minimum.

headshot91 said:

YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THEM THREE MONTHS AGO BECAUSE HTE IN GAME RECORDING FEATURE, AND MULTIP[LAYER WERE NOT ANNOUNCED TILL LATE MAY!

Really? I will have to call you out as a massive liar, because this video:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58362

exibiting the multi-player modes went live at the end of April.

headshot91 said:

i HOPE YOU NOW REALISE THEYRE NOT LAZY!

If anything, you've helped confirm they are lazier than I originalyl implied.

 



Ultibankai on 13 August 2009

OMG!! You are so hell bent on proving the PS3 is inferior that you are using mid-development details/problems as facts for how the end games will be, while this so called "Graphics God of a Game" hasn't even been released yet.. Did you not read the frigging interview, for the 100th time, Carmack said that by the end of development both versions of the game on both consoles would be equal. F**king wait until it comes out to decide which console it runs better on!! And if it isn't really all that, I am going to laugh at you if it comes out and Killzone 2 still looks better!! Just letting you know....




               

                  

Ultibankai on 13 August 2009

By they way, do not base how good this game looks on pre-released screen shots. As stated by Squilliam some time ago, those are always doctored in some way. Also, the PS3 is only having frame rate problems, not texture resolution problems like the 360. Therefore, both consoles are dragging their feet in some way.

PS: Regardless of how good you "think" this game looks, you cannot prove they are using superior programming techniques in comparison to Sony's 1st party developers. Stop using your opinion as fact, this is another problem you have. Just because you "think" this is a "Graphics God of a Game" doesn't make it so. Let the experts decide when it is released.




               

                  

Squilliam on 13 August 2009
Ultibankai said:
By they way, do not base how good this game looks on pre-released screen shots. As stated by Squilliam some time ago, those are always doctored in some way. Also, the PS3 is only having frame rate problems, not texture resolution problems like the 360. Therefore, both consoles are dragging their feet in some way.

PS: Regardless of how good you "think" this game looks, you cannot prove they are using superior programming techniques in comparison to Sony's 1st party developers. Stop using your opinion as fact, this is another problem you have. Just because you "think" this is a "Graphics God of a Game" doesn't make it so. Let the experts decide when it is released.

This really is more a next generation engine in that neither the Xbox 360 nor PS3 have everything this engine needs to perform at its peak. The Xbox 360 has the ability to render more complicated shaders than the PS3 and do it more efficiently at that and the PS3 has the media streaming advantage between the HDD and Optical drive to really do justice to the requirements of the streaming required of the engine. If any game justified an Xbox 360 GPU + PS3 CPU and system architecture (HDD + BR) along with a Microsoft programming architecture its probably this game.

Oh and yeah, of course they picked the best possible screenshot example to show and thats likely the PC running dual GTX 280s with processing applied afterwards. It wouldn't surprise me if they rendered the shots above at 10,000 by 6,000 pixels and down sampled it at minimum.



Tease.

Ultibankai on 13 August 2009
Squilliam said:
Ultibankai said:
By they way, do not base how good this game looks on pre-released screen shots. As stated by Squilliam some time ago, those are always doctored in some way. Also, the PS3 is only having frame rate problems, not texture resolution problems like the 360. Therefore, both consoles are dragging their feet in some way.

PS: Regardless of how good you "think" this game looks, you cannot prove they are using superior programming techniques in comparison to Sony's 1st party developers. Stop using your opinion as fact, this is another problem you have. Just because you "think" this is a "Graphics God of a Game" doesn't make it so. Let the experts decide when it is released.

This really is more a next generation engine in that neither the Xbox 360 nor PS3 have everything this engine needs to perform at its peak. The Xbox 360 has the ability to render more complicated shaders than the PS3 and do it more efficiently at that and the PS3 has the media streaming advantage between the HDD and Optical drive to really do justice to the requirements of the streaming required of the engine. If any game justified an Xbox 360 GPU + PS3 CPU and system architecture (HDD + BR) along with a Microsoft programming architecture its probably this game.

Oh and yeah, of course they picked the best possible screenshot example to show and thats likely the PC running dual GTX 280s with processing applied afterwards. It wouldn't surprise me if they rendered the shots above at 10,000 by 6,000 pixels and down sampled it at minimum.

That got me thinking of how awesome a PS360 would be! LOL!  And by the way, doesn't the PS3's CPU allow for more complicated Physics and Lighting apps in game?  And doesn't the 360's (10 megabyte?) frame buffer have something to do with the frame rate advantage as well?