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

Forums - Microsoft - Xbox 360 OWNS 2010 !

slowmo on 28 January 2010

Precisely Lord Flashheart, how can you take a definitive fact from a statement made by somebody with a vested interest in one console selling better than the other. Multiplatform developers have no such vested interest and for the most part, the opinion is they're about even.

@Mazty - I'm not even going to enter a discussion with you on a game I haven't got in my hands, and playing yet (Mass Effect 2). What I would say is before you can make any judgement on any games graphics you should have at least played it in person imo. Bullshots and bad captures make screenshots a good rough gauge but not definitive. I'll follow your posting more closely in the future before I change my opinion of whether you are indeed a alt or not. It still doesn't change the fact that this is one of those threads that was always going to cause trouble with it's title.

One thing which is good for the 360 for 2010 is 2 AAA titles released and we aren't out of January yet.



Around the Network
Ping_ii on 28 January 2010

This "because this devs work for Sony we cant trust what they say" is Bull crap, so why is it when Bungie or valve or Turn 10 says their game will be this huge leap or No racing game can compete with us or PS3 system is a total disaster none of you got no problems with it?

http://www.psu.com/Crytek--CryEngine-3-will-run-slightly-better-on-PS3--a006807-p0.php

Crytek: CryEngine 3 "will run slightly better" on PS3

http://www.videogamer.com/news/fary_cry_2_dev_pleased_by_ps3_spu_efficiency.html

Fary Cry 2 dev pleased by PS3 SPU efficiency

I bet we shudn't trust them either since their paid by $ony right? seriously Selnor trust a particular dev because it supports his argument, now Im not jumping in to this shit storm nor Im defending any1 Im just saying those claim of yours are bullcrap.



Mazty on 28 January 2010
selnor said:
Mazty said:
Lord Flashheart said:
Ok Jede, Ok.

Quit with the name constant name calling; you're like a stoned kid obsessed with tin foil. Someone said ME2 was the best graphics ever seen on a console. I said this wasn't true because:

1i)It's graphics, from high res screenshots, highlight many technical short comings e.g. soft shadows, anti aliasing, low res textures in the surrounding, a reliance on bump mapping etc
    ii) This is backed by the fact the game runs almost perfectly on an old GPU, the 8800GT
2)The 360 simply isn't as powerful as the PS3.  Naughty Dog have said this, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch Productions, Santa Monica Studio, and John Carmack.
3) It would be rare for a non-exclusive title to be the most graphically demanding game on a console due to the optimisation that goes into exclusives. It's cheaper and easier not to optimise.


I never have said the 360 isn't a good console, or that ME2 isn't a good game. You can choose to prefer ME2's graphical direction in comparison to Uncharted 2, but it isn't as technically demanding, which some how people reguard as flamebaiting.

Sorry but please show me where Carmack says PS3 is more powerful? I showed you the quote from him less than 7 months ago where he clearly said PS3 and 360 Cpu are the same in the end, but 360 GPU is a bit more powerful. How is that PS3 is more powerful. As for the other devs. I dont trust them. They will say whatever to sell more PS3's because thats what games they make.

 

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/2279/img0007med.jpg

From a post you made apparenlty making it all the more hilarious. And yes, saying just because they are a Sony dev means we can't trust them is fanboy logic. So there we are. I have only been saying the truth, which apparently is too much for people to handle around here.



Mazty on 28 January 2010
slowmo said:
Precisely Lord Flashheart, how can you take a definitive fact from a statement made by somebody with a vested interest in one console selling better than the other. Multiplatform developers have no such vested interest and for the most part, the opinion is they're about even.

@Mazty - I'm not even going to enter a discussion with you on a game I haven't got in my hands, and playing yet (Mass Effect 2). What I would say is before you can make any judgement on any games graphics you should have at least played it in person imo. Bullshots and bad captures make screenshots a good rough gauge but not definitive. I'll follow your posting more closely in the future before I change my opinion of whether you are indeed a alt or not. It still doesn't change the fact that this is one of those threads that was always going to cause trouble with it's title.

One thing which is good for the 360 for 2010 is 2 AAA titles released and we aren't out of January yet.

If the 200+ trophies won't convince you then you are out of your mind.



Lord Flashheart on 28 January 2010

@Ping
The difference is they aren't saying this game can only run on our machine. Saying it will be a huge leap is fine. At no point does it mean it can't be done on the PS3. PS devs say all the time x game can only be run on PS3 with nothing to back it up other than a bit of lighting here and there. If a 360 dev said this game can only run on the 360 I wouldn't believe him. Any game designed from the ground up can run on either console.
Yes to the guy who said he's pleased with the SPU efficiancy. There's nothing wrong with that comment. It's not flammatory or part of the fanboy console wars. He's not saying it can't run on the 360 so he's not out to cause trouble. If only more devs could make comments like that. Do you see the difference between saying it runs better on x console to saying x console could never run this game by someone who has never programmed for said machine?
As for the cryengine comment. According to everyone you won't see any difference but you keep taking that "slightly better" to mean a resounding win for the PS3 if it makes you feel better. I'll sit here waiting to see the first game to be released using it. Hey maybe he's a "lazy dev"? ;P



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Around the Network
Mazty on 28 January 2010
Lord Flashheart said:
@Ping
The difference is they aren't saying this game can only run on our machine. Saying it will be a huge leap is fine. At no point does it mean it can't be done on the PS3. PS devs say all the time x game can only be run on PS3 with nothing to back it up other than a bit of lighting here and there. If a 360 dev said this game can only run on the 360 I wouldn't believe him. Any game designed from the ground up can run on either console.
Yes to the guy who said he's pleased with the SPU efficiancy. There's nothing wrong with that comment. It's not flammatory or part of the fanboy console wars. He's not saying it can't run on the 360 so he's not out to cause trouble. If only more devs could make comments like that. Do you see the difference between saying it runs better on x console to saying x console could never run this game by someone who has never programmed for said machine?
As for the cryengine comment. According to everyone you won't see any difference but you keep taking that "slightly better" to mean a resounding win for the PS3 if it makes you feel better. I'll sit here waiting to see the first game to be released using it. Hey maybe he's a "lazy dev"? ;P

The actual problem is that too many people get pissy when someone says one machine is more powerful than the other. Carmack says the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, as well as other developers. Frankly there is no good reason not to believe them as I'm pretty sure they would have been bollocked for lying if this wasn't the case.

The only reason this thread ended up into 360 vs PS3 was because someone claimed that ME2 is the best graphical game on the consoles. When it comes down to it, it's hard to believe that a non-exclusive title would be the best looking game on the consoles, and on the weaker of the two machines. It's simple logic. The only reason the fanboy console wars exist is because people somehow think the power of the console makes it & it's games more or less enjoyable console, which of course is not true/doesn't logically follow.

 

PS. "Our machine"? No, it's not your machine, it's the console of a faceless corperation, like all of them. Thinking otherwise will just lead to insecure arguments over essentially nothing.



Lord Flashheart on 28 January 2010

Wow you are pedantic. You know full well what I meant when I said "our machine" and what context it was used in. Grasping at straws now.

You claim that fanboy wars exist because they think more power=more enjoyable game but you yourself keep going on about one machine being more powerful and at every opportunity telling anyone you think is listening that the 360 is less powerful. Why are you so hung up on making everyone aware that the 360 is slightly less powerful than the PS3? Will that help to justify your purchase or help to continue to convince yourself it's a valid reason not to buy a 360.
I dread to think how you talk about the Wii in the ninty forums.

Carmack said there is a LITTLE bit more theoretical headroom on the PS3. For someone so pedantic you was very loose with how you chose to paraphrase that.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

huaxiong90 on 28 January 2010
selnor said:
Mazty said:
Lord Flashheart said:
Ok Jede, Ok.

Quit with the name constant name calling; you're like a stoned kid obsessed with tin foil. Someone said ME2 was the best graphics ever seen on a console. I said this wasn't true because:

1i)It's graphics, from high res screenshots, highlight many technical short comings e.g. soft shadows, anti aliasing, low res textures in the surrounding, a reliance on bump mapping etc
    ii) This is backed by the fact the game runs almost perfectly on an old GPU, the 8800GT
2)The 360 simply isn't as powerful as the PS3.  Naughty Dog have said this, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch Productions, Santa Monica Studio, and John Carmack.
3) It would be rare for a non-exclusive title to be the most graphically demanding game on a console due to the optimisation that goes into exclusives. It's cheaper and easier not to optimise.


I never have said the 360 isn't a good console, or that ME2 isn't a good game. You can choose to prefer ME2's graphical direction in comparison to Uncharted 2, but it isn't as technically demanding, which some how people reguard as flamebaiting.

Sorry but please show me where Carmack says PS3 is more powerful? I showed you the quote from him less than 7 months ago where he clearly said PS3 and 360 Cpu are the same in the end, but 360 GPU is a bit more powerful. How is that PS3 is more powerful. As for the other devs. I dont trust them. They will say whatever to sell more PS3's because thats what games they make.

http://kotaku.com/173732/carmack-hates-the-ps3

 

The title is just sarcasm, but there you have it.



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

dahuman on 28 January 2010

on a side note, the PC version looks pretty sweet, no spoilers, don't worry. =)

me being nub:


still nubby:


not as nub, but became a power spam person to save ammo =X :




TheMarkness on 28 January 2010
Mazty said:
Lord Flashheart said:
Ok Jede, Ok.

Quit with the name constant name calling; you're like a stoned kid obsessed with tin foil. Someone said ME2 was the best graphics ever seen on a console. I said this wasn't true because:

1i)It's graphics, from high res screenshots, highlight many technical short comings e.g. soft shadows, anti aliasing, low res textures in the surrounding, a reliance on bump mapping etc
    ii) This is backed by the fact the game runs almost perfectly on an old GPU, the 8800GT
2)The 360 simply isn't as powerful as the PS3.  Naughty Dog have said this, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch Productions, Santa Monica Studio, and John Carmack.
3) It would be rare for a non-exclusive title to be the most graphically demanding game on a console due to the optimisation that goes into exclusives. It's cheaper and easier not to optimise.


I never have said the 360 isn't a good console, or that ME2 isn't a good game. You can choose to prefer ME2's graphical direction in comparison to Uncharted 2, but it isn't as technically demanding, which some how people reguard as flamebaiting.

Number two there makes it easy to spot a fanboy. John Carmack completely says the opposite to what your saying based on developement for Rage:

http://www.slashgamer.com/2009/07/31/rage-runs-faster-on-360-than-ps3/

http://www.edge-online.com/news/carmack-ps3-performance-lags-behind-360

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21962

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=220530

It's been talked about time and time again by numerous developers that both systems have thier unique strengths and weaknesses when it comes to power. While the Cell CPU architecture based on how the seperate SPE's operate is capable of doing more compared to the Xbox CPU 3-core based architecture it all depends on if the developers design their engine/game to utilize that specific architecture. Power wise I would give the PS3 the advantage here only if properly coded for. (in this case John Carmack really puts them pretty close in performance).

GPU time and time again is always acredited to being more powerful on the Xbox 360 solely based on it's fast memory interface and unified shader architecture. Reading John Carmacks comments on development of his behemoth "Rage" easily points out the simply the Xbox 360 GPU is just fast; no if, ands, or buts about it. I like Carmack draw the same comparisons too that the RSX is almost identical to a shelf verison 7800GTX while the Xenos is based losely off of a X1900 Radeon with the addition of unified shaders, 10MB embedded DRAM, etc.

Number one and three kind of lump together. The graphics on Mass Effect 2 may have short comings but despite that it is a pretty impressive looking and scaled game none the less. Considering the Xenos is compariable the 8800GT feature set wise then it makes sense that it would run perfectly on that hardware. Pointing to number three why would it be rare for a non-exclusive title to be most graphically demanding on a console as you put it. If the Xbox 360 architecture is very close to a typical PC architecture (which it is) then coding a graphical demanding game for the Xbox 360 is easily feasible to multi-plat to the PC since they are very interchangable from a programming and design perspective.

Now non-exclusive games designed around two completely different pieces of architecture or platforms would make more sense in that argument (say PS3 / 360 multi-plat , not 360 / PC as in this case).

Naughty Dog, Guerilla Games are first party studios that get funded by Sony to develop. If they where independents I would value their opinion closer as I do ID and Carmack who is not constrained by who pays the bills. Give a studio 3-4 years of development time and a crazy budget as Naughty and Guerilla has had and I assure you we could see something similar in scale on the 360 (noting that it would be completely exclusive to 360 not a exclusive with PC release).