FKNetwork said: MikeB said: @ Chrizum Uncharted 2 looks great, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to to with the Cell or Bluray (it could have been done on the 360 and PC as well). Not with this quality on the 360 according to these well respected developers. Their provided reasoning are also IMO solid. I think it's nice to see top devs being excited about what they can do with their future PS3 games. You mean "according" to a 1st party ps3 developer lol, of course they will say its only possible on the PS3, doesn't mean its true, anything on the ps3 could be done on the 360 with ease including unchartered 2, the only issue would be space on the drive but graphics would be no issue at all seeing as the 360 has a better gpu and memory setup.

We can only be sure of that when we see a game on 360 that looks better than Uncharted 2 :)

BladeOfGod said: FKNetwork said: MikeB said: @ Chrizum Uncharted 2 looks great, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to to with the Cell or Bluray (it could have been done on the 360 and PC as well). Not with this quality on the 360 according to these well respected developers. Their provided reasoning are also IMO solid. I think it's nice to see top devs being excited about what they can do with their future PS3 games. You mean "according" to a 1st party ps3 developer lol, of course they will say its only possible on the PS3, doesn't mean its true, anything on the ps3 could be done on the 360 with ease including unchartered 2, the only issue would be space on the drive but graphics would be no issue at all seeing as the 360 has a better gpu and memory setup. We can only be sure of that when we see a game on 360 that looks better than Uncharted 2 :)

Not long then seeing as Crysis is just around the corner for both platforms, already looks better (graphically) than unchartered 2 :)

FKNetwork said: BladeOfGod said: FKNetwork said: MikeB said: @ Chrizum Uncharted 2 looks great, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to to with the Cell or Bluray (it could have been done on the 360 and PC as well). Not with this quality on the 360 according to these well respected developers. Their provided reasoning are also IMO solid. I think it's nice to see top devs being excited about what they can do with their future PS3 games. You mean "according" to a 1st party ps3 developer lol, of course they will say its only possible on the PS3, doesn't mean its true, anything on the ps3 could be done on the 360 with ease including unchartered 2, the only issue would be space on the drive but graphics would be no issue at all seeing as the 360 has a better gpu and memory setup. We can only be sure of that when we see a game on 360 that looks better than Uncharted 2 :) Not long then seeing as Crysis is just around the corner for both platforms, already looks better (graphically) than unchartered 2 :)

On PC yes, on consoles HELL NO

To MikeB:

Just as many developers disagree about how easy the ps3 is to develop for either explicitly or in terms of the quality of their ports suffering.  I also don't understand how programming 6 parallel processors with in order execution cores is "not that hard."  It's hard enough with fewer processors and that's why we have processors that order the instructions for us!  Honestly, if a dev of the caliber of valve complains, there's no way to claim the ps3 is easy to develop for.

Did you read that phrack quote I posted?  The SPU memory is not protected and so stack overflows can overwrite the PROGRAM memory.  And printf fails to debug this.  In one stupid move they elimiinated the best debugging tool known to man when the all too common stack overflow occurs.  The fact a stack overflow can overwrite the program itself is really all I have to say about how developer friendly the cell is.

It is suitable for gaming, military, and scientific development in terms of performance.  In terms of cost and time the complexity of programming a 6 way parallel processing unit with in order execution cores on an entirely new architecture is a complete failure, as almost every multiplatform game attests to.  The people who succeed with ps3 are funded by sony or need cheap high performance computing clusters, making the work to program a ps3 trivial compared to the costs of purchasing a traditional cluster. 

Most of these organizations just needed parallel computing anyways and a cluster of traditional processors would have worked as well if they could afford them.  The army and scientists who buy ps3s do so because Sony takes a loss on selling hardware and they can buy ultra-cheap clusters this way.  That is why they disabled linux in the slims - if they don't buy games the loss leading strategy fails and sony ends up subsudizing parallel computing for the masses.

There is a reason people suggest writing ray tracers on a ps3 to spruce up a resume.  The ps3 changed too much at once.  It may be the future but when you consider cost, complexity, and the fact porting is essential in gaming, there is no reason why they couldn't have begun with x86 and moved on from there.  

The cell is a radical new step, but there's no reason we couldn't move to parallel processing in x86 first.  All sony did is unload the challenge onto the devs and they'd be morons not to react the way they did.

i'm not gonna pretend that i know stuff about teh cell and blu-ray as i don't know shit. but i do see that many a third party developer are having issues developing multiplat games for the ps3. majority of the multiplats are slightly better or even significantly better on the x360 than the ps3.

though the cell is a very capable processor as proven by the likes of uncharted2 and killzone2, its complexity to code for is a hindrance, and no its not that the developers are lazy, imo, its more on the fact that they are timed constrained and are on a budget. not enough time and not enough cash to get the games properly done for the ps3.

on the otherhand, larger storage space of the bd allows for more content and longer games. which is why i'm quit disappointed with gta4. if it had been ps3 exclusive it could have been larger and hand more content.

MikeB said: @ RAZurrection When was Crysis 2 released?

This generation. I mean if you're trying to say Cell and PS3 were worthwhile, then you need to look long term, since Crysis 2 blows every ps3 exclusive out of the water graphically and technically and runs better on Xbox 360 and PC, then that just seems to confirm that DVD was adaquate for this generation and Cell development was discontinued for a good reason.

CGI-Quality said: A. Crysis 2 isn't out on anything yet, and the devs have already said their engine is better suited on the PS3.

If by better suited you mean "maxed out".

Personally I think it's pretty poor that a 3rd party game is maxing out the newest system on the market and it looks better then the exclusives that were supposed to set the system apart...but it doesn't look like the PS3 was futureproofed for this contingency.

CGI-Quality said: B. What do their financials have to do with a tech thread?

Surely you need to look at the negatives too? Crippling 99% of its library compared to an older system is one thing, but to potentially bring the SCE division to its knees? For what, higher resolution clips? Silly.

CGI-Quality said: C. Many games do ruin worse on PS3, yep, but 99%? Something that you pulled from no where it seems. Beyond that, many of these multiplats aren't even taking advantage of the console, and are generally ports from the 360.

99% or an overwhelming vast majority, lets not quibble over specifics.

Yet... they are multi-platform they don't take advantage of 360 either...and yet again we still have games like MW2 and Crysis 2 nuking Resistance and Killzone/Uncharted 2 visually and technically. 

TBH i'm pretty sure Sony has to make games like that though, when you know your version of the best looking games of 20xx+ look and run better on the older system, how do you convince gamers otherwise.

I guess it all boils down to how much you enjoy the exclusives, but MS & Nintendo seem to be having a lot more success on that front.

slowmo said: If you want a vote of it was the right call for one percent of games released on the system so far then I'm afraid I cannot agree.

Precisely...but even then that 1% looks to be redundant with stuff like Crysis 2. 

HappySqurriel said: The PS3 was released a year after the XBox 360, cost $100/$200 more than the XBox 360 to buy, and Sony was still losing hundreds of dollars to manufacture the system, and after developers have spent over 4 years working on the system the benefits over the XBox 360 are minimal; and the XBox 360 still regularly receives the better version of games because how unsuited the Cell processor is to game development.

Something that doesn't get brought up enough, especially when you consider Microsoft didn't even have Xenons when they had Cells at 2.4GHZ.

HappySqurriel said: Now, if you want to see how much of a mistake the Cell processor was and how pointless Blu-Ray was compare the advantage a year gave the PS3 to the advantage a year gave the Gamecube and XBox over the PS2; and neither of those systems cost nearly as much to manufacture as the PS3 cost Sony.

Exactly, now I hated the Gamecube with a passion (i own one, but found it pretty redundant last gen) but at least you were assured that 99% of your cross platform were better then PS2 and the exclusives were a breed apart.

With the PS3 you only get a better cross platform experience next to the PS2/PSP/Wii version and a couple of titles that look nice...until Crysis 2 and all for a premium price.

 

 

ils411 said: i'm not gonna pretend that i know stuff about teh cell and blu-ray as i don't know shit.

Don't worry about it, you know as much as most people arround here, but they don't have problems spreading fud.

oobob said: To MikeB: It's hard enough with fewer processors and that's why we have processors that order the instructions for us!  Honestly, if a dev of the caliber of valve complains, there's no way to claim the ps3 is easy to develop for.

Compared to the past it's much easier when building from scratch. I don't think Valve's core developers really complain, Gabe is just a manager and their game engine isn't as suitable for heavy multi-processing at this point like for instance a multi-platform game engine like the Crytek engine.

Read up on the SPE's MMUs.

"They are fully PowerPC [ISA] compliant, so when you issue MFC/DMAs, it steps through the same address translation and protection mechanism that the PowerPC core steps through."

Filled under, not really an issue.

BladeOfGod said: FKNetwork said: BladeOfGod said: We can only be sure of that when we see a game on 360 that looks better than Uncharted 2 :) Not long then seeing as Crysis is just around the corner for both platforms, already looks better (graphically) than unchartered 2 :) On PC yes, on consoles HELL NO

You need glasses!

@ RAZurrection

Remains to be seen. If they tap enough Cell resources, it's likely the PS3 version will run better than the 360 version.

I hope they will tap the Blu-Ray technology as well with a good streaming engine (texture streaming and 7.1 surround audio), that's something I would worry about more as they do have a modern engine in terms of multi-processing design. In any case Crytek should technically have far more room for gains on the PS3 than on the 360 while maturing their game engine.