By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
huaxiong90 on 28 January 2010
TheMarkness 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.

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).

Umm...no.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/carmack-ps3-rage-will-run-at-60fps

 

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

 

Plus, see the video I provided earlier. John Carmack has said there is more theoretical power on PS3 than Xbox 360, but he prefers Xbox 360 development due to it being easier to optimize for.



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

Around the Network
huaxiong90 on 28 January 2010

Mazty, the problem is your approach to this thread was rather flamebait-ish.

I mean, you're comparing the Xbox 360 to PC hardware first to say it's dated, for god knows what reason. Then you also say this could be the 360's worst year yet. The 360 has a number of AAA (as in the budget of the project) exclusives and console exclusives as well as Natal coming to it this year, which all could/will give it a much better year than 2009.

You're not behaving as bad as iHuGi, but what you mentioned in the beginning was uncalled for, and that's why Lord Flashheart and selnor began to get more and more hostile towards you. I, too, don't think Mass Effect 2 has the best graphics on consoles, and I also don't think Gears of War 2 blew away the competition in 2008 as MGS4 had something to say about that, but what game(s) is/are ahead of Mass Effect 2 besides Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2? Honestly.

Also, can you provide a video/picture to show the poor depth of field?



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

TheMarkness on 28 January 2010
huaxiong90 said:
TheMarkness 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.

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).

Umm...no.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/carmack-ps3-rage-will-run-at-60fps

 

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

 

Plus, see the video I provided earlier. John Carmack has said there is more theoretical power on PS3 than Xbox 360, but he prefers Xbox 360 development due to it being easier to optimize for.

Yeah I saw that eurogamer article before but it was simply stating that Rage will run at 60fps on the PS3 as well which I assumed would happen after optimization and testing closer to release. Did not see that snippet on the magazine scan or video before (haven't looked at Rage in awhile). I again still agree that yes while there is "theoretically" more power on the PS3 it's all up to having a dedicated developer that is optimizing directly for that hardware to take advantage of it compared to your typical developer. I still believe along with many others (Carmack still agrees as well) that the Xbox 360 GPU is still more powerful and capable than the PS3 RSX GPU due to it's more modern feature set and architecture. While the Cell CPU is a different story (power wise).

Simply strengths and weaknesses for each, still impresses me to this day that a console released 1 year prior to the other has a more capable GPU, simply goes to show Sonys last minute decision on thier GPU solution compared to Microsoft.



kingrybo1986 on 28 January 2010

the best version of bayonetta and me2 already and not even into feb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
enough said really :)



Mazty on 28 January 2010
huaxiong90 said:
Mazty, the problem is your approach to this thread was rather flamebait-ish.

I mean, you're comparing the Xbox 360 to PC hardware first to say it's dated, for god knows what reason. Then you also say this could be the 360's worst year yet. The 360 has a number of AAA (as in the budget of the project) exclusives and console exclusives as well as Natal coming to it this year, which all could/will give it a much better year than 2009.

You're not behaving as bad as iHuGi, but what you mentioned in the beginning was uncalled for, and that's why Lord Flashheart and selnor began to get more and more hostile towards you. I, too, don't think Mass Effect 2 has the best graphics on consoles, and I also don't think Gears of War 2 blew away the competition in 2008 as MGS4 had something to say about that, but what game(s) is/are ahead of Mass Effect 2 besides Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2? Honestly.

Also, can you provide a video/picture to show the poor depth of field?

 

Actually I just corrected people. Someone claimed ME2 was going to be the best game visually on both consoles. This clearly was never going to be the case due to it a)not being an exclusive and b)being on the weaker of the two consoles. That's just logic, so not my fault if people then cry over point 'b' when it's a bloody fact.

The 360's sales have been weekly beaten by both the wii and PS3 since the PS3 price cut. Plus there are numerous large PS3 exclusive (none of this on PC nonsense) out this year which many people have been waiting for: Heavy Rain, God of War III, GT5 and so on. The 360 has very few titles when you look at it in terms of true exclusives. If you factor in the PC, then there are less exclusive  games out for the 360 than the PS3, and with the PS3 already selling more units a week for the last few motnhs, there is no good indication as to why this is going to change any time soon. 360 is getting Natal, PS3 is getting Arc - moot point until people actually use the hardware.

Yes few games are ahead of ME2, but I think people more got pissed off with the mention that it was PS3 titles beating a 360 title rather than looking at it objectively. And yeah, every screenshot I've seen doesn't show DoF, hence why I asked for one. If I can't see it, I can only say it's not there until I'm shown otherwise. Plus, no AA - that's pretty old-school.



Around the Network
Mazty on 28 January 2010
Lord Flashheart said:
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.

Any time I;ve mentioned the PS3, I've never referred to it as "my/our" console. Very odd way to see it.

No, I said that ME2 is unlikely to be the graphically best game EV0R because it doesn't look that impressive, and when you get down to it, it's neitehr an exclusive, or on the most powerful console. That's the fact of the matter whether you like it or not. I only brought up the power fo the 360 when someone insisted it was better than U2, which from a tech point of view, quite clearlly is bull as you can tell from screenshots one has more AA, better soft shadows, and post processing effects.

Ps. "You were very loose" just to make sure I'm being pedantic enough for you.



huaxiong90 on 28 January 2010
TheMarkness said:
huaxiong90 said:
TheMarkness 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.

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).

Umm...no.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/carmack-ps3-rage-will-run-at-60fps

 

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

 

Plus, see the video I provided earlier. John Carmack has said there is more theoretical power on PS3 than Xbox 360, but he prefers Xbox 360 development due to it being easier to optimize for.

Yeah I saw that eurogamer article before but it was simply stating that Rage will run at 60fps on the PS3 as well which I assumed would happen after optimization and testing closer to release. Did not see that snippet on the magazine scan or video before (haven't looked at Rage in awhile). I again still agree that yes while there is "theoretically" more power on the PS3 it's all up to having a dedicated developer that is optimizing directly for that hardware to take advantage of it compared to your typical developer. I still believe along with many others (Carmack still agrees as well) that the Xbox 360 GPU is still more powerful and capable than the PS3 RSX GPU due to it's more modern feature set and architecture. While the Cell CPU is a different story (power wise).

Simply strengths and weaknesses for each, still impresses me to this day that a console released 1 year prior to the other has a more capable GPU, simply goes to show Sonys last minute decision on thier GPU solution compared to Microsoft.

Yeah, the PS3 architecture isn't the most practical for development, nobody's denying that. It's also true that the Xbox 360 graphics card is more advanced than that of the PS3's, but that's where the Cell's SPUs comes into play, the Cell and GPU work together. It's just that not many developers make effecient use of the SPU's due to it being a more cost effective and dev. time reducing solution (which fanboys who look at it from a non-business perspective laughingly call it "laziness" even though the differences aren't significant).

 

 



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

huaxiong90 on 28 January 2010
Mazty said:
huaxiong90 said:
Mazty, the problem is your approach to this thread was rather flamebait-ish.

I mean, you're comparing the Xbox 360 to PC hardware first to say it's dated, for god knows what reason. Then you also say this could be the 360's worst year yet. The 360 has a number of AAA (as in the budget of the project) exclusives and console exclusives as well as Natal coming to it this year, which all could/will give it a much better year than 2009.

You're not behaving as bad as iHuGi, but what you mentioned in the beginning was uncalled for, and that's why Lord Flashheart and selnor began to get more and more hostile towards you. I, too, don't think Mass Effect 2 has the best graphics on consoles, and I also don't think Gears of War 2 blew away the competition in 2008 as MGS4 had something to say about that, but what game(s) is/are ahead of Mass Effect 2 besides Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2? Honestly.

Also, can you provide a video/picture to show the poor depth of field?

 

Actually I just corrected people. Someone claimed ME2 was going to be the best game visually on both consoles. This clearly was never going to be the case due to it a)not being an exclusive and b)being on the weaker of the two consoles. That's just logic, so not my fault if people then cry over point 'b' when it's a bloody fact.

The 360's sales have been weekly beaten by both the wii and PS3 since the PS3 price cut. Plus there are numerous large PS3 exclusive (none of this on PC nonsense) out this year which many people have been waiting for: Heavy Rain, God of War III, GT5 and so on. The 360 has very few titles when you look at it in terms of true exclusives. If you factor in the PC, then there are less exclusive  games out for the 360 than the PS3, and with the PS3 already selling more units a week for the last few motnhs, there is no good indication as to why this is going to change any time soon. 360 is getting Natal, PS3 is getting Arc - moot point until people actually use the hardware.

Yes few games are ahead of ME2, but I think people more got pissed off with the mention that it was PS3 titles beating a 360 title rather than looking at it objectively. And yeah, every screenshot I've seen doesn't show DoF, hence why I asked for one. If I can't see it, I can only say it's not there until I'm shown otherwise. Plus, no AA - that's pretty old-school.

"Other than Halo Reach and Fable 3 the 360 doesn't have many exclusives whatsoever. With DX11 out and so many PS3 exclusives this year, I can't see it being the year of the 360 at all. Dated tech is really showing it's limitations and this is being reflected in gameplay. Plus, Arc's due in Fall, whereas Natal just seems to be the eyetoy. With the week on week sales of PS3 beating the 360, I can't see 2010 being a good year for 360 - I'd actually be willing to bet it's going to be it's worst."

 

Ok, so this was a response to someone saying Mass Effect 2 is the best looking game out on consoles now. All right, as painful as this'll be, I'm going to go through all of the comments to see about this. As for games not being able to be completely graphically demanding on Xbox 360: Aren't the GPU's of Xbox 360's and PC's similar? So where is the difference that sets them apart? Please explain. I don't understand platform specs in depth.

 

As for the Xbox 360 and PC: Not everybody can afford a gaming rig. Of course sales aren't going to reach their max potential by being console exclusives, but they can certainly cause sales spikes, as well as contribute to the overall value (i.e. games) of a console when deciding which console to buy. They have more bigger budget exclusives this year than 2009. Will they help to outsell the PS3? I don't know, as the PS3 has AAA games of its own, but we'll see. As for Natal and Arc: I've said what you said to people who think it's a fact that they will turn the tides. Can they turn the tides? Yes, with the right price and software. Natal has more media attention than arc, so IF Microsoft pull it off right, it can be a success. It's speculation, in other words. Nobody's putting it off as a fact.

 

Last but not least, this is where I disagree with Lord Flash and selnor: It has nothing to do with PS3 favoritism. Neither me nor CGI can see what sets this above Uncharted 2 or even Killzone 2 (char. models are where ME2 is ahead of KZ2, though the lighting and environment detail is better in KZ2).



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!

TheMarkness on 28 January 2010

True huaxiong90 while the Cell's SPUs can handle offloading vertex calculations (and only vertex calculations) from the GPU (which can help depending on the type of game developed) it still remains that the Xenos GPU is a much more advanced and mature GPU of the two. Remember offloading vertex calculations theoretically takes away one of the SPUs giving you less CPU room to work with which in turn partially negates part of the Cell's speed advantage over the 360 CPU. Again unless your a dedicated developer with strong experience and development time with the Cell hardware this would actually probably hinder more than it would benefit.

I don't know how we started getting so technical on here lol, way off the original topics track. 360 has a great year ahead of it for 2010 and I look forward to gaming in it (along with the other consoles/PC).



huaxiong90 on 28 January 2010
TheMarkness said:
True huaxiong90 while the Cell's SPUs can handle offloading vertex calculations (and only vertex calculations) from the GPU (which can help depending on the type of game developed) it still remains that the Xenos GPU is a much more advanced and mature GPU of the two. Remember offloading vertex calculations theoretically takes away one of the SPUs giving you less CPU room to work with which in turn partially negates part of the Cell's speed advantage over the 360 CPU. Again unless your a dedicated developer with strong experience and development time with the Cell hardware this would actually probably hinder more than it would benefit.

I don't know how we started getting so technical on here lol, way off the original topics track. 360 has a great year ahead of it for 2010 and I look forward to gaming in it (along with the other consoles/PC).

Yes, I'm aware and I definitely agree. To get the most out of the PS3 or the Xbox 360 in all aspects, you have to create an engine specifically built for the platform.

 

This got technical after Mazty came and said with DX11 and more PS3 hardware demanding exclusives coming, the Xbox 360 hardware is showing its limits. Now he says this is in response to someone claiming ME2 is the undisputed graphics king now. Fair enough, I'm going to go through the thread to see if this is true. Then selnor responded saying ME2 holds the graphics crown now, and it carried on from there on out for god knows how many pages. XD

 

But yeah, as an owner of all platforms (except for a gaming rig, I go to a local gaming network place, which is up to date with the benefits of steam like mods and sort, to get my PC gaming fix) everyone of them will be used extensively this year.



Rockstar: Announce Bully 2 already and make gamers proud!

Kojima: Come out with Project S already!