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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Your technical opinion on Blu-Ray and the Cell as found in the PS3

 

Your technical opinion on Blu-Ray and the Cell as found in the PS3

Both Cell and Blu-Ray hav... 359 64.80%
 
The Cell has been beneficial, but Blu-Ray not 13 2.35%
 
Blu-Ray has been beneficial, but not the Cell 100 18.05%
 
Neither Blu-Ray nor the Cell are beneficial 36 6.50%
 
PS3 "a waste of everybody's time" 19 3.43%
 
Blu-Ray and Cell are useless for gaming 27 4.87%
 
Total:554

I can't believe that this problem can not be solved.

PS3 is more powerful than the 360, and Cell, Blu-ray, and the standard HDD are the big three reasons. What is the point in arguing it? Better graphics do not nesssicarly mean better games. Banjo Kazooie in my eyes is a much better game than Tooie or Nuts & Bolts, but techniqually its the least impressive. The same goes for many titles, to many to name in fact. So instead of arguing over about something that has a factual awnser just go play the games and have fun.

Seriosly, this is like battling over which picture is more red. Is it the red one or the blue one?



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

Around the Network

btw, I meant older style shader vs unified in the GPU comparison, not model 3 vs 4, was working and didn't have time to correct every post lol, my bad.



Neither were beneficial. If Sony chose an Intel chip and kept with DVD9, no one would have ever noticed. While the features of Blu-Ray are a boon to have in regards to future media standard neither really benefited the PS3 in terms of gaming.

Games aren't hardware they are software. Software is well soft and malable and can be done on anything.



Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.

@.jayderyu

True, had Sony not used Blu-ray and Cell we would have never had this thread. Since they did, however, use current tech in the PS3 now we can look at what a disapointment PS3 would have been with off the shelf parts. I agree with you that better graphics do not mean better games as I stated just 2 posts above, but there is purpose to more powerful machines. Otherwise N64, and PS1 would have been just fine, as you could do many of todays games on those systems no problem.

In any case no matter what Sony new consoles were not going to come out any sooner than 2011 - 12. That means console gamers would not have had the oppertunity to play games as beautiful as Uncharted 1 & 2, MGS4, Killzone 2, and most of the PS3 exclusives from here on out until at least that time.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

RAZurrection said:
dahuman said:

I can easily do a CPU comparison and say that the 360 is the lowest denominator when it comes to that as well, it's all just word games that you are twisting without realizing the actual differences in between the tech behind the hardwares. PS3 Exclusives do generally look better than the 360 ones, that's not paper at all, it's real world performance.

I don't know PS3 has a couple of nice looking exclusives like KZ2 & Uncharted 2, everything else is strictly run of the mill,  but these aren't going to help once Crysis 2 is out on both systems...so really, how can they support the inclusion of Cell & Blu-ray when other better looking games,, like Crysis 2 look and runs better on systems with neither?

dahuman said:

On top of that, RE5 did perform better on the PS3 because it was worked on the PS3 first and then ported to the easier to dev 360, while the 360 had lower framrate, it was still able to catch up with the effects thanks to the shader prowlness of it's GPU.

Wow. I can't believe how off you are with this:

"Capcom's Framework MT engine uses some very useful tricks in maintaining image quality. It runs at native 720p, and employs the use of full-on 4x multisampling anti-aliasing on Xbox 360, while using the 2x Quincunx technique on PS3. On a like-for-like basis, this means that the 360 has clearer visuals (2x QAA blurs every texture) but edge-smoothing is very similar."

...

"However, things are slightly odd on the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5 in that the anti-aliasing can turn on and off again at any given point, seemingly when the engine seemingly isn't being stressed at all."

..

"While the overall look of the game is very close on both machines, the Xbox 360 version wins out with the inclusion of a bit more bling for your money."

 

"As you might expect, the water is a key element of this particular stage and you'll note that the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5 is flatter and duller, with fewer reflections. The Xbox 360 version on the hand has full world reflections, making this stage in particular rather more attractive than its counterpart on the Sony platform. It's a similar compromise to that seen on the PS3 version of Fallout 3, where once again 360 has more detailed and realistic water reflections."

...

Also evident is that the Xbox 360 version has more in the way of incidental particle effects and transparent alpha textures (i.e. smoke). For example, in the main video edit you saw how Chris Redfield takes down a speeding lorry that's hurtling towards him. On 360, there are friction-esque sparks and a proper exploding windscreen that you don't see on PS3.

None of these make the Sony platform look that much inferior in the heat of the action, but it's a clear indication that Capcom still has some work to do on the Framework engine to bring its performance up to the 360 counterpart.

...

"The major difference is that Xbox 360 runs with v-lock disengaged, while the PlayStation 3 code has absolutely no tearing whatsoever. However, similar to Grand Theft Auto IV - which operates in the same way - the Xbox 360 version has a tangible advantage here on two fronts. Firstly, it drops far fewer frames than the PS3 code, and secondly, the response from the controls is significantly crisper, particularly when the environments are chockfull of opponents. And again, similar to GTAIV, while the tearing is there, it's pretty much unnoticeable in gameplay (cut-scenes are another matter)."

 

Third party analysis found the 360 to have the more consistent framerate than the PS3 at the expense of tearing, while the PS3 had no tearing at the expense of the framerate. I don't know why you'd lie about that. But really if the 360 was supposed to "catch up" on effects, then someone better tell them to stop because apparently it's beyond what PS3 can do. Not bad since the PS3 was the lead platform.

dahuman said:

The reason the Xbox had a bottleneck design was due to it's memory architecture, not so much the memory amount or the GPU performance, which they improved upon with the 360,

I'd recommend you read "The Xbox 360 Uncloaked" by Dean Takahashi then as "not enough memory" was the biggest single item of feedback Microsoft received from developers about what to improve last gen.

dahuman said:

Mandatory installations is pretty much a thing of the past at this point during the PS3's lifespam unless it's one of the lesser impressive devs, but at least the PS3 comes standard with a HDD which is not something I can say about the 360 or the Wii.

Well I think this may come back to haunt you since "sandbox" games and mandatory install go hand in hand on PS3 and Crysis 2 and Rage are both sandbox...and while it may be true that the 360 doesn't have a standard harddrive, this doesn't change the fact you can buy a 360 without one and still get superior graphical performance in games where installs are mandatory on PS3. 

dahuman said:

The full quote is "but in our case, the PS3 is running at the top level." You are a funny guy and think you are smart apparently, that or turn deaf when it's something you don't want to hear lol, put "but in our case the" where you put in the (inaudable). YOU LOOSE!

I thought thats what it was. But I still don't get how that stops the PS3 from being the lowest denominator, he's not referring to the overall obviously because thats the PC.

mibuokami said:

Firstly, when you speak of lowest common denominator are you refering to each console from a technical perspective or are you simply pointing out that to a third party programmer currently working on multiplatform title, the PS3 is often the lowest common denominator?

 

My opinion on lowest denominator = System thats going to receive the most cut-backs for real-time performance

mibuokami said:

If you have been talking all this time about the later, then I apologise as we're clearly not refering to the same thing, you are in fact correct.

We in this case i'd choose to disagree, since I don't think it's a secret that most "HD" games this gen are built with the 360 in mind and very few with PS3 in mind, yet the 360 rarely ends up with the worst version despite that fact.

mibuokami said:

That is why the true potential of the PS3 generally comes out from its exclusive lineup, which are better than anything the 360 could produce to date, and my consideration to it is base on the assumption that you are judging each machine's potential, not just the ability of a programmer to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Well I think there's the issue right there, which is what i've been getting at. The TC could have made this topic in 2007 using Ratchet, Uncharted 1 and Heavenly Sword, but within a year you had 360 exclusives and cross platforms looking and performing better then those...and since it has neither Cell nor Blu-ray, how could they be provably beneficial for the PS3?

So likewise, with multi-platform Crysis 2 on the horizon, certain to visualy and technically outdo any PS3 exclusive thus far announced or released, how is this different?

Uncharted 1 is still consider a technical milestone, there are few if any games on the 360 OR the PS3 that match its excellence even to date, and that is with merely 1 year of ulitising the PS3 capability, developer got better and they learn how to utilise the system better (both the 360 and the PS3) as time went on, but for every step forward the 360 took, the PS3 is one step ahead in graphic.

Uncharted 2 is the undisputed graphic king. Crysis 2 is not live, we've been given a tech demo with no interaction, until the 360 can produce something as good as Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2, my point stand.

In otherword, I'm dealing with both technical potential of the system and what it can currently output. To both this point, the PS3 has been and still is ahead, until proven otherwise, it will remain ahead. There is no reason why this is hard to accept, the 360 uses older tech and came to the market one year earlier. Its not a fair fight.

 




Around the Network

@CGI - I think the reason this debate will never end is down to the more extreme fanbase of each console.

On the PS3 front they were pretty much mocked for 18 months after the console launched at paying for a system worse than the 360 technically (most games supported this unfortunately). Now the PS3 has a few titles that in a Sony fans eyes look better than the 360 games they've become just as petty and annoying with the shouts of how powerful their system suddenly is now. The 360 fanbase then comeback with multiplats look far better though on the 360 hence it must be because Sony chucked money and people at devs for them to optimise a few games not down to hardware.

All of these sorts of discussion are irrelevant though imo as when I look at the 360 and PS3 games I don't see any gulf in performance at all. Last generation the gap between the PS2 and Xbox was huge, this generation the difference is blatantly tiny.


To the guys going hammer and tongs at each other in here, you lose credibility for me when you start picking apart developer quotes as "evidence". MikeB gets criticized for misusing developer quotes constantly so I owe it to my sense of fairplay to say I think the rest of you are just as bad using them as some sort of proof. Too many quotes are taken out of context and very often they can be misquoted to start with.



dahuman said:

Funny, so I didn't say anything wrong about RE5, PS3 performed better while the 360 had effects due to GPU, I don't know where you are getting at.

Uh , no you said this "On top of that, RE5 did perform better on the PS3 because it was worked on the PS3 first and then ported to the easier to dev 360, while the 360 had lower framrate"

I just linked to an independant third party analysis confirming the 360 had the better framerate. Do you lie this much in real life or do you live in a world where a lower framerate with worse graphics constitutes the better version? If it's the latter, please cease communication with our reality.

dahuman said:

I was talking about the Xbox vs the Wii, who was talking about the 360, English, boy, English, use people's context correctly.

Dood, you still loose,

I'm surprised you have the audacity to preach the correct use of English, when you can't even spell "Lose" or "Dude" properly.

dahuman said:  the fact that the PS3 is harder to program for doesn't make it weaker than the 360 as you claim, nor does fit into your idea of him calling his engine the "lowest denominator" with the PS3 side which was your original argument,

How about the fact it performs worse for most games this gen?

dahuman said: your logic completely falls apart on that subject now and I don't know why you are trying to twist it again when it's clear as day. Do you even remember what you were saying before at this point? I suggest you read back to it again.

That PS3 is the lowest denominator for Cry Engine 3, same as Cavet said.

MikeB said:

@ RAZurrection

IMO Uncharted: Drake's Fortune still looks better from a technical perspective. The game implements better HDR combined with AA, sharp textures, smooth animation and many multiple languages (including Dutch). The first game already was good at showing off what the Cell and Blu-Ray can help to accomplish.

Heavenly Sword also has good HDR combined with some fancy filtering. Although IMO the game isn't as solid as Uncharted (however does include impressive scenes with a huge amount of enemies onscreen) it also made good use of Blu-Ray disc by providing support for many different languages (including Dutch) and the cutscenes are really of outstanding quality.

Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction, a very cartoony game which doesn't really need as badly the advanced lighting and filtering (it does have) as in the other games does IMO still looks better than similar cartoony games on the 360. It runs well, an amazing amount of things going on at once (very hectic, IMO the Cell certainly helps to keep track of this all).

Yet regardless of how well you think these titles hold up, they don't really hold a candle to even the multiplatform games of today...or last year, so you're basically boiling it down to different languages on disc (which they do on 360 anyway)..and I don't think anyone would call that a good reason for Blu-ray.

mibuokami said:

Uncharted 1 is still consider a technical milestone, there are few if any games on the 360 OR the PS3 that match its excellence even to date, and that is with merely 1 year of ulitising the PS3 capability, developer got better and they learn how to utilise the system better (both the 360 and the PS3) as time went on, but for every step forward the 360 took, the PS3 is one step ahead in graphic.

Uh, it might have been for 2007, but it wasn't in 2008, so it's definitely not in 2009. 

mibuokami said:Uncharted 2 is the undisputed graphic king.

Uh, no Crysis on PC is Graphics King, on consoles is what you mean.

mibuokami said:

until the 360 can produce something as good as Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2, my point stand.

So until Crysis 2/Rage then...which are coming some time in the next 300 days. All I want to know is, if this is the case - and no-one seems to be arguing that C2 will be better - how are Cell & Blu- Ray worthwhile additions if at best all they do is act as holdovers? History won't look back and see it this way.

 

 



RAZurrection said:
dahuman said:

Funny, so I didn't say anything wrong about RE5, PS3 performed better while the 360 had effects due to GPU, I don't know where you are getting at.

Uh , no you said this "On top of that, RE5 did perform better on the PS3 because it was worked on the PS3 first and then ported to the easier to dev 360, while the 360 had lower framrate"

I just linked to an independant third party analysis confirming the 360 had the better framerate. Do you lie this much in real life or do you live in a world where a lower framerate with worse graphics constitutes the better version? If it's the latter, please cease communication with our reality.

dahuman said:

I was talking about the Xbox vs the Wii, who was talking about the 360, English, boy, English, use people's context correctly.

Dood, you still loose,

I'm surprised you have the audacity to preach the correct use of English, when you can't even spell "Lose" or "Dude" properly.

dahuman said:  the fact that the PS3 is harder to program for doesn't make it weaker than the 360 as you claim, nor does fit into your idea of him calling his engine the "lowest denominator" with the PS3 side which was your original argument,

How about the fact it performs worse for most games this gen?

dahuman said: your logic completely falls apart on that subject now and I don't know why you are trying to twist it again when it's clear as day. Do you even remember what you were saying before at this point? I suggest you read back to it again.

That PS3 is the lowest denominator for Cry Engine 3, same as Cavet said.

MikeB said:

@ RAZurrection

IMO Uncharted: Drake's Fortune still looks better from a technical perspective. The game implements better HDR combined with AA, sharp textures, smooth animation and many multiple languages (including Dutch). The first game already was good at showing off what the Cell and Blu-Ray can help to accomplish.

Heavenly Sword also has good HDR combined with some fancy filtering. Although IMO the game isn't as solid as Uncharted (however does include impressive scenes with a huge amount of enemies onscreen) it also made good use of Blu-Ray disc by providing support for many different languages (including Dutch) and the cutscenes are really of outstanding quality.

Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction, a very cartoony game which doesn't really need as badly the advanced lighting and filtering (it does have) as in the other games does IMO still looks better than similar cartoony games on the 360. It runs well, an amazing amount of things going on at once (very hectic, IMO the Cell certainly helps to keep track of this all).

Yet regardless of how well you think these titles hold up, they don't really hold a candle to even the multiplatform games of today...or last year, so you're basically boiling it down to different languages on disc (which they do on 360 anyway)..and I don't think anyone would call that a good reason for Blu-ray.

mibuokami said:

Uncharted 1 is still consider a technical milestone, there are few if any games on the 360 OR the PS3 that match its excellence even to date, and that is with merely 1 year of ulitising the PS3 capability, developer got better and they learn how to utilise the system better (both the 360 and the PS3) as time went on, but for every step forward the 360 took, the PS3 is one step ahead in graphic.

Uh, it might have been for 2007, but it wasn't in 2008, so it's definitely not in 2009. 

mibuokami said:Uncharted 2 is the undisputed graphic king.

Uh, no Crysis on PC is Graphics King, on consoles is what you mean.

mibuokami said:

until the 360 can produce something as good as Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2, my point stand.

So until Crysis 2/Rage then...which are coming some time in the next 300 days. All I want to know is, if this is the case - and no-one seems to be arguing that C2 will be better - how are Cell & Blu- Ray worthwhile additions if at best all they do is act as holdovers? History won't look back and see it this way.

 

 

First point is just being petty, of course I'm talking about console, when did the PC even enter this discussion.

With regards to the second, I would like to reiterate that we have seen no live interactive demo of either Crysis 2 or Rage running on the 360 (only a tech demo of the former and nothing of the later), so there is no evidence that either game will match or beat Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 at this stage.

But even if Crysis / Rage did beat the above mention title graphically, what's to stop Sony from taking back the crown with another first party exclusive?

I even mention in my earlier post that developer constantly seek improve themselves and produce better title, why would Naughty Dog for example, suddenly stop improving? Did Epic rested on its laurel when they produced Gears of War which they proudly proclaim was the limit of the 360? No they went and made Gears of War 2 which won many Best Graphic award in 2008.

By the time Crysis 2 come out, ND would certainly be hard at work on their next project and if I was a betting man, I would bet that it will beat anything Crysis 2 or Rage can throw out graphically.

But alas, it is in the future and I cannot make use of it as a source to justify why the PS3 is a superior hardware. It has yet to prove itself! So I'll use what I can and still remain justified.

This is why I find your argument so hollow. You're trying to advise me that 360 is a superior piece of hardware base on potential future products that have not proven themself, I could very well say that Uncharted 3 (which ND has candidly confirm will be forthcoming) will shit all over Rage and Crysis 2 and defeat your hollow argument with an equally hollow rebuttal.

And btw, if you had a look at my early post, you would have seen that I am one of those that propose the Cell was a mistake on Sony's part, we actually agree! But for entirely different reason. I feel that the Cell is too radical a departure from the norm and developer were simply not ready to adapt. It came a generation to soon and costed Sony dearly, all parties (gamers, developers and Sony) would have benefited from a more tradional architecture.

I do think that the Blue-Ray was a great choice so we'll have to agree to disagree.




@ slowmo

MikeB gets criticized for misusing developer quotes constantly


If you want to make allegations, why not at the very least provide some proof.

more extreme fanbase of each console


I still think people like you are exceptions.



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

Well technically speaking, both are great. A HD storage format and a powerful CPU that can do calculations and advanced graphics compared to x86 CPUs. Ace.