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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Insomniac's Brian Hastings speaks out on the PS3

staticneuron on 02 April 2007

vanguardian1 said: Shadows of the Empire was my fav 64 game, personally. Xenogears and Final Fantasy Tactics on the PSX. Personally I'm usually too busy enjoying the game to pay attention to the pixels and polygons. :)
Exact same favorite titles here as well I just got through xenosaga series and I must say that I like xenogears alot more and I cannot wait for some tactics action on my psp.



Games make me happy! PSN ID: Staticneuron Gamertag: Staticneuron Wii Code: Static Wii - 3055 0871 5802 1723

Around the Network
Kwaad on 02 April 2007

I'm waiting on the Dragoneer Aria... That looks awesomem



PSN ID: Kwaad


I fly this flag in victory!

HappySqurriel on 02 April 2007

robjoh said: @happysqurriel damn I didn't know that it was such a large difference...actuly thought that ps1 and N64 had the same power more or less. albionus said: Wikipedia's entries have a good rundown of the technical differences between the two. There's lots of MHz's, MB's, MB/s', MPixels, etc. but I guess the most notable number is that the PS1 could output 180,000 polygons per second while the N64 could do 500-600,000 at the same quality level. Nintendo apparently required a higher quality 100,000 poly/s mode to be used however. Someone mentioned it earlier but despite being more powerful the N64 was also more difficult to program for (which system does that sound like today). Again, wikipedia has a section on it but a major problem was the N64's graphics processor only had a 4 kB texture buffer. That limited the size of a texture that developers could use which caused the muddy stretched textures many games had. Developers found work arounds of course but it took time and effort.
There is actually a lot of problems with each of the components in the N64; the system needed 8 or 12 MB of memory rather than the 4 that came with it by default and the memory's latency was too high; the CPU could have used a L2 cache and a 64 bit bus; and the GPU could have used a much larger texture buffer. Had it not been as rushed of a project, and had Nintendo been willing to budge on the initial manufacturing cost of the system, the actual performance from the system would have (probably) doubled and developers would have had a far easier time obtaining decent performance.



Stromprophet on 02 April 2007

albionus said: Stromprophet said: That's funny. I had a 64 and there is no way in compared to games like Tomb Raider, RE, MGS, or FF. Everything was in blocks on 64 and PS had realistic shapes. Sure there was pixilation, and jaggies, but there were a lot more textures, backgrounds, etc. CD had more room for lots of things than 64Bit. So longer levels, more textures, better music (if the game had music in 64 sometimes). I think the PS had more room to grow with CDs to show that. Especially with the CGI movies which were pretty cool and definitely a step up from our Nintendo/SNES days. I don't remember any game on 64 that was as complicated and involved as MGS was. Wow, I really didn't think anyone could question that the N64 had better graphics but apparently I was wrong. Admittedly the cartridge limited the expanse of the gameplay so FFVII or MGS wasn't possible but graphically as HappySqurriel shows there was no question of which was better. Oh well, any comments on how much better PS2 games look than GCN/Xbox ones Stromprophet? So yeah, 5 pages, impressive.
I guess my memory was trickin me up. Still, my main memory would be Goldeneye and comparing that to MGS my main memory from PS. For those 2 games the clear winner graphically would have been MGS. Well, if you look at God of War II some people say PS2 games now rival Xbox and Gamecube in the graphics department. At least that's what some people say. God of War II certainly looks really good graphically for an older system.



Stromprophet on 02 April 2007

Alacrist said: I didn't know that, I guess it goes to show graphics don't always win!
Yeah that is true. Though I think Sony managed to do other things. They were 2 years ahead to start and had a base growing in the US and Japan. They also secured all the 3rd party support. And games like FF, MGS, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Munch, Twisted Metal, Crash Bandicoot, etc, etc, etc. They just had so much more to offer from game selection. Also choosing a standard disc helped. CDs were becoming standard in PCs and in Music. So developers no doubt found it easier to use.



Around the Network
sieanr on 02 April 2007

HappySqurriel said: robjoh said: @happysqurriel damn I didn't know that it was such a large difference...actuly thought that ps1 and N64 had the same power more or less. albionus said: Wikipedia's entries have a good rundown of the technical differences between the two. There's lots of MHz's, MB's, MB/s', MPixels, etc. but I guess the most notable number is that the PS1 could output 180,000 polygons per second while the N64 could do 500-600,000 at the same quality level. Nintendo apparently required a higher quality 100,000 poly/s mode to be used however. Someone mentioned it earlier but despite being more powerful the N64 was also more difficult to program for (which system does that sound like today). Again, wikipedia has a section on it but a major problem was the N64's graphics processor only had a 4 kB texture buffer. That limited the size of a texture that developers could use which caused the muddy stretched textures many games had. Developers found work arounds of course but it took time and effort. There is actually a lot of problems with each of the components in the N64; the system needed 8 or 12 MB of memory rather than the 4 that came with it by default and the memory's latency was too high; the CPU could have used a L2 cache and a 64 bit bus; and the GPU could have used a much larger texture buffer. Had it not been as rushed of a project, and had Nintendo been willing to budge on the initial manufacturing cost of the system, the actual performance from the system would have (probably) doubled and developers would have had a far easier time obtaining decent performance.
A short addendum: Ninty had a very backwards stance with the microcode on the 64 and it was only when they started relenting with Rare that some truely impressive titles hit. Conker is an excellent example of what good microcode on the 64 can do, as is indiana jones. Of course microcode wouldn't prevent the TMEM from sucking, but it would help.



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

Narfer on 02 April 2007

i really liked my N64. i had alot of games for it that i really liked and worked well. rayman: the great escape (amazing game. the last good rayman game), a wrestling game that was extremely indepth for the N64 and any console ever, perfect dark, (another great great first person shooter. made by rare (same as goldeneye) amazing storyline with indepth cut scenes, great mini challenges. great multiplayer levels. BEST SIM CONTROLL EVER. no game has matched its amazing bots you could have in multiplayer) Donkey Kong. it was also made by rare, sadly a secuel for this donkey kong game will never be made thanks to rare breaking away from nintendo.



A delayed game is good someday, a bad game is bad forever.

windbane on 03 April 2007

I read through Hastings comments and they are what one would expect from someone whose livelihood depends on the PS3 dong well. He isn't some unbiased dev at EA or Ubisoft (even they wouldn't be unbiased just less biased) but even so some of his comments can be taken at face value and have been shot down elsewhere on this thread. For example, people aren't buying the Cell anymore than people bought an EE or RSP, they are buying video game systems. Most of the market (I'd wager over 80% maybe over 90%) has no clue what Cell is. Developers mostly care about install base and until the PS3 shows any potential of moving out of 3rd place in the real world and not just in the fevered imaginations of Sony fanboys resources will continue their drift over to the Wii and 360 (despite the lack of Cell).
Just because he's biased does not mean he's wrong. His list is well defended and well reasoned. He was not saying that people would buy the PS3 directly because of Cell, he was saying developers will be able to take advantage of its power to make games better. The potential that the PS3 will move out of third place started before it was released when the 360 didn't sell in Japan as expected. The PS3 quickly passed the 360 there and has now sold very well this month in "Other" countries (you know, it really sucks that all of you guys are lumped together...I'd say Europe but that would exclude Australia and New Zealand and a lot of other places I'm sure). The potential also rests in exclusive games that are left with the PS3. I think those that think the Wii will completely dominate PS3 and 360 combined are crazy. 2 to 1 against combined numbers? Yeah, ok. If the Wii was also getting GTA, Devil May Cry, Mercenaries, etc, then maybe I'd believe you. I am VERY curious how sports games will sell on the Wii compared to the 360 and Wii. We'll see how that goes. Anyway, Hastings did not say anything untrue or outlandish. The only stretch was his opinion that the Wii would fade. That is yet to be determined but it could easily lose momentum with Halo, MGS4, FF13, GTAIV are released. The sports games will have to be programmed to control better to make up for lack of graphics and effects as well. I'm curious how basketball will control. We'll see. http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=81422 if you still need the link.



albionus on 03 April 2007

My point on the biased issue is not that he was lying or making things up, just that he is not unbiased like those (including Hastings himself) claiming he has no dog in the fight.  Knowing he has a bias weighted towards Sony means he could be expected to overstate the PS3’s strengths and downplay, or in this case simply ignore, its weaknesses.  Re-reading his comments I would say that is what he is doing.  Everything he mentioned is a definite plus for the PS3 but how much of an advantage are they?

 

3 quick examples, Blu-ray, it’s a plus that it comes with the PS3 but how many people want or can take advantage of it?  Not many, and assuming Blu-ray wins the format war by the time people do care there will be much cheaper and better Blu-ray players on the market.  Same with HDMI, it’s a plus but so few can or know to take advantage of it that it that it isn’t that major.  Cell is more powerful than the others but unless the PS3 has the install base to make spending the extra money to take advantage of it worthwhile the devs won’t and gamers won’t benefit.    

 

As for weaknesses he ignores the biggest of them all, price.  This includes both the $600-900 consumer price and the at least double dev costs.  This is not a minor problem, as Sony attempting to hide the prive prior to E3 06 and the stunned silence when it was announced attest.  Sony also admitted it with the statement that people should be willing to work extra to get the money for a PS3. Sorry Sony and Sony fanboys, most people are not willing to work extra for a video game system, especially not when other options are available.  The dev cost primarily matter since it requires the PS3 to have an even larger install base than usual to justify the cost.

 

What it boils down to is that the PS3 is in a race against time.  If Blu-ray can gain widespread acceptance, if HDTV penetration grows rapidly, if the main competition fades, if people decide to devote an unprecedented share of income to video games, if Home, LBP, and free internet take the gaming masses by storm, if devs take the time to fully utilize the Cell and 50GB discs, then the PS3 would be able to gain #1.  However, all but the last one won’t be happening for 1-3 years much less in the near term.  The last one is also the most critical to growing the install base.  If the install base doesn’t start growing soon, which shows no signs of happening at the moment, then the rest won’t matter.

 

People aren’t going to wake up in 3 years and say hey let’s go get an expensive Blu-ray player with Home and LBP to play on our new HDTV.  Devs are already showing that the higher costs to them are a deal breaker so until people decide to start buying the PS3 the games will not follow further inhibiting sales (FFXIII & MGS4, assuming they remain exclusives, pale in comparison to the PS2 or the expected PS3’s list).  Hastings didn’t address this most important of relationships, as well as would be expected given his bias on the issue.  Lastly, when you’re reduced to betting that your competition will fail you’re in a bad spot no longer in control of your destiny.