By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mazty on 25 January 2010
selnor said:
Dont be fickle. In no way EVER will I listen to any solo Sony Dev/ M$ Dev over John Carmack. He has been at the forefront of graphics technology for over 15 years. Not the last 5 years. Of course he knows about the SPU's. Thats why his comment about splitting off jobs is made. Thats a direct reference to the badly designed SPU's system. Sorry, I know you look at GFLOPS and say that does this much and that does that much. It doesn't work like that. It all depends on what the game is asking. We already know that 360's CPU is much better for certain jobs and have known since 2006. I have read many articles about the 2 systems from mutual ground experts. ( Not Sony or M$ companies ) And all say in the end the result is both consoles will churn out about the same. Each have strengths. The main reason we have seen PS3 tak some graphics lead after KZ2 was the massive amount of Single player inhouse games designed. Every game on 360 bar 1 which looks great has been designed for split screen campaign ( or 4 player splitscreen ). ME is the only singleplayer game with effort. That is changing with Alan Wake ( god that looks amazing ) and Campaign of Splinter Cell ( although it does have a seperate campaign for splitscreen ). Engines have to change for splitscreen.

 

Badly designed system? Last I checked a CPU that could render is nothing shy of amazing. As for what the game is asking...they all ask for the same damn thing - computational power and the Cell is better at that then the 360s CPU.  The main strength of the 360 is that it's easy to program for and games can be easily ported over to the PS3 due to the PPE architecture. You are only kidding yourself if you think iD will put as much time into the Cell programming for Rage as Naughty Dog did for Uncharted 2.
And U2 is considered the graphics leader of consoles, so quit the fanboy waves of denial. Any engine which does splitscreen is also going to be graphically weaker than one which doesn't, unless graphics are cut down for split screen.



Around the Network
Mazty on 25 January 2010
Lord Flashheart said:

@Matzy. I've been responding to your claims. You said 512MB is a bit low. Nothing about the speed of the ram. If you meant the speed you would have said. Nice bactracking.

Anyway you've been fun but you're level of ignorance is testing even Selnor and i've scraped the last bit entertainment out of you. I didn't realise how much  you hated the 360 but between your analysis of graphics based on youtube clips!?! posting bull shots for games you then say you can't post any shots for because it's not out yet to ignoring whats before your eyes, it was even wrapped up in a youtube vid for you , and constantly moving the goalpost or completely ignoring someones point and taking the discussion on a tangent to deflect focus from answering I have the measure of you.

I look forward to someone else taking on your case and maybe they can help you with whatever issues you have or at least have a laugh.

Hahaha! Congratualtiosn on showing your utter lack of technical understanding. If you think ram size & speed aren't linked, go do some research. I don't hate the 360, but clearly you have to justify your Christmas present so hard you are willing to see reality differently and ignore hard facts. And yeah, when the only shots availabe are "bullshots" (What a phrase, girls must be all over you) and the game isn't released, what do you suggest? Should I scrap something together in paint for you? Seriously the interent should have an minimum IQ limit on it to keep ignorant fools off of it.

Plus I showed, quite literally with screenshots, how ME2 graphically is nothing special, with benchmarks backing me up & you just ignore it. I think that sums up your argument - ignore it and keeping praising a game that runs great on a 4 year old GPU. Oh yeah, because that game MUST look amazing.



huaxiong90 on 25 January 2010
Mazty said:
selnor said:
Mazty said:

Just because 1 had good textures & 2 is an improvement doesn't mean 2 is instantly amazing as you have to look at the games and how the market has developed since ME1. Which is a hell of a lot.

As you clearly are not looking at what I've noticed, I have far too much spare time and so have highlighted them in the following screenshots:
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/8544/vlcsnap2010012512h04m22.png
As you can see the textures for the enviroment are very simple and so are the shadows. On the left during the video the soft shadows are basic, which is seen on the right as there is a very clear distinction between hard & soft, not a gradual change. Hardly top notch graphics and you have to remember, this game runs great on the 8800GT, which is telling about the graphics.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7648/vlcsnap2010012512h05m09.png

The above link shows how the supposed amazing textures aren't there. Look at the facial hair. It's just texturing, whereas the skin is quite low res bump mapping. Though a mad amout of detail has gone into Shepard who looks ace.

So there we are - exact screenshots from the video at 720p and the game looks ace, but the graphics are hardly the best on the consoles.

Again disagree. These screenshots are video captures. Poor video captures at that. motion blur etc affecting the quality of the image on the capture. ( It is Image Shack after all ).

On the Ps3 argument you were making it's interesting to note that 5 months after KZ2 relesed the worlds most influential and greatest graphics designer gaming has ever known had this to say about making Rage. Lets not forget Rage is 60 FPS to.

"CVG details an extensive 10-page feature on id Software's Rage in the latest issue of UK games magazine Edge. The piece includes confirmation by John Carmack that the Xbox 360 version of the game will run at a brisk 60 frames per second, but that he has found PS3 to be at a disadvantage to Microsoft's console in terms of rendering power. "The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," he said.

As a result, Edge reports that the game runs at "just 20-30fps" on Sony's console. Carmack places the blame on the PS3's GPU -- the RSX -- saying that, "The rasterizer is just a little bit slower -- no two ways about that...the RSX is slower than what we have in the 360." He sees both consoles as being comparable in terms of raw processing power, however. "The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off," he told the magazine. "...that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."

Now, before you go making a comment you can't take back, know that the Edge article doesn't clarify whether or not the performance of the PS3 version will be improved prior to release. It's also telling that Carmack states that the PS3 is only "a little bit slower" than 360 in his findings -- if that's the case, we can't imagine that the finished will run at fully half the speed."

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/30/edge-rage-running-at-60fps-on-360-just-20-to-30fps-on-ps3/

How can you disagree with screenshots?!?!?! I played them in VLC player at the same quality as the video. Talk about ignoring what is infront of your eyes. Does that skin realy look high resolution? Of the environment? And what about the clearly sh*t soft shadows which is move obvious when the video is running?!

Yes rage will run faster on 360 because I can guarentee the SPUs will be ignored. Why? Because it's cost effective not to use them and just use the one PPE. This is the case with almost all multiplatform titles and is hardly new news.

To say the CPUs are about the same is nothing shy of stupidity. The Flop fogures are there that disprove that, not to mention its a CPU that can help with graphics unlike every other CPU on the market - ask Guerilla nad Naughty Dog about using the Cell for graphics.

Frankly I'm getting sick of educating people on electronics & economics. Not using SPUs = easier, therefore, cheaper, but less performance.

Way too early to judge: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/carmack-ps3-rage-will-run-at-60fps



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

dahuman on 25 January 2010

What John Carmack really means about the bad SPU design is it's higher level of difficulty to work with, not that it's so bad that you can't make games awesome on it. >.>;;;; You guys need to understand that he's a dev, he's talking on dev terms, not consumer terms, we consumers see final results, while devs see completely different pictures. I'm sure Rage will harness the power of the SPUs on the Cell just fine and dandy, but it'll be a bitch for devs either way no matter how much power it has and you'd need to hire specific programmers or make existing ones learn something completely new which take time and resources with either option. Also, the memory part, both are about the same in efficiency if you count in the eDRAM in the 360, the way to combat that problem is as usual, to have a streamline code running in the background constantly feeding new info, which would open an entire can of new worms.....



theprof00 on 25 January 2010

why do they own 2010? Did MS buy it?



Around the Network
Tenkin on 25 January 2010

^^ From a of Rage screen quotes "More sweat equity had to be put into PS3"
"We're getting along with the PS3 very well. We took a lot of time early on in the development cycle to learn it." http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2279/img0007med.jpg



huaxiong90 on 25 January 2010
Tenkin said:
^^ From a of Rage screen quotes "More sweat equity had to be put into PS3"
"We're getting along with the PS3 very well. We took a lot of time early on in the development cycle to learn it." http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2279/img0007med.jpg

When was this?



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

Tenkin on 25 January 2010
huaxiong90 said:
Tenkin said:
^^ From a of Rage screen quotes "More sweat equity had to be put into PS3"
"We're getting along with the PS3 very well. We took a lot of time early on in the development cycle to learn it." http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2279/img0007med.jpg

When was this?

Selnor posted those links himself on his thread on Rage



aleusianacht88 on 25 January 2010

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh god...



selnor on 26 January 2010
Mazty said:
selnor said:
Dont be fickle. In no way EVER will I listen to any solo Sony Dev/ M$ Dev over John Carmack. He has been at the forefront of graphics technology for over 15 years. Not the last 5 years. Of course he knows about the SPU's. Thats why his comment about splitting off jobs is made. Thats a direct reference to the badly designed SPU's system. Sorry, I know you look at GFLOPS and say that does this much and that does that much. It doesn't work like that. It all depends on what the game is asking. We already know that 360's CPU is much better for certain jobs and have known since 2006. I have read many articles about the 2 systems from mutual ground experts. ( Not Sony or M$ companies ) And all say in the end the result is both consoles will churn out about the same. Each have strengths. The main reason we have seen PS3 tak some graphics lead after KZ2 was the massive amount of Single player inhouse games designed. Every game on 360 bar 1 which looks great has been designed for split screen campaign ( or 4 player splitscreen ). ME is the only singleplayer game with effort. That is changing with Alan Wake ( god that looks amazing ) and Campaign of Splinter Cell ( although it does have a seperate campaign for splitscreen ). Engines have to change for splitscreen.

 

Badly designed system? Last I checked a CPU that could render is nothing shy of amazing. As for what the game is asking...they all ask for the same damn thing - computational power and the Cell is better at that then the 360s CPU.  The main strength of the 360 is that it's easy to program for and games can be easily ported over to the PS3 due to the PPE architecture. You are only kidding yourself if you think iD will put as much time into the Cell programming for Rage as Naughty Dog did for Uncharted 2.
And U2 is considered the graphics leader of consoles, so quit the fanboy waves of denial. Any engine which does splitscreen is also going to be graphically weaker than one which doesn't, unless graphics are cut down for split screen.

No games dont all ask for the same type of computational power. You should do some research. And no, several sources have called Sony and their first parties bluff on Cell being more powerful in a gaming environment. John Carmack is just the most respected Graphics Nerd out there. He speaks at GDC on Nvidia presentations and the like more than any other dev. I wonder why?

Raz from this very website has seen Rage running on consoles physically with his own eyes. If he says it beats other console games already out, then I trust him. So basically Carmack just got more out of the PS3 by putting less time into Cell Programming according to you. Oh and loads of reviewers are saying ME2 is either one of the best looking games this gen or saying it is, or that it's unsurpassed. So yeah, me saying ME2 is the best console game this gen for graphics no longer looks or sounds stupid. LOL. You can keep looking silly if you like.