Print

[incognegro]

got this from an IGN interview for fight night. You can go to IGN and search for it but if ur lazy like me then here it is:


IGN: Are the visual improvements specifically thanks to "The power of PS3" or is it simply because the developers had more time to work on next-gen hardware?

Blank: The answer is both. More time allows us to think about how to do things in different ways. At the same time, the PS3 is a powerful system and there are things we can do on this system that are unique. Each system has its advantages but both systems are really powerful tools that help us to make the great games we want to make.

IGN: Well then, be as frank as possible: How difficult or easy was it to port the game from Xbox 360 to PlayStation 3?

Blank: Making the game work on the PS3 was not an easy feat but this is the experience all game makers have at every hardware transition. The PS3 works differently than the 360 in many respects. That being said, once the initial learning curve was overcome, we've become very adept at figuring out how to get the most out of the platform.

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(Uradox @ Nov 30 2006, 05:15 AM)

The whole point of the blur is to make it realistic, its what us photographers refer to as depth of field. Trust me, that image would look just stupid if  the background wasnt blured.

I think we all understand focal points and what happens when you focus on something in the foreground

[twistedsymphony]

He is absolutely correct about "depth of field" being implemented. It's not actually a resource saving technique it's actually resource intensive.

IIRC Dead or Alive 4 was one of the first high profile games to make use of this new features, since then a few other games use it like Dead Rising and Fight Night

From what I understand the background needs to be rendered normally then progressively blurred, which sucks up quite a bit of resources.

I remember it being a big source of debate because pre-release screenshots of DOA4 included it and many people said that even the next gen consoles wouldn't have the power to perform such a technique... of course now we've had several games released that uses it.

http://ruliweb.dream...360/doa4_03.jpg
http://www.generatio...mo/Doa4_C03.jpg
http://www.inpactvir...reens/28110.jpg

If we actually had stereo vision (like REAL VR headsets) in games then this technique wouldn't be needed because the blur is caused naturally by our focal point. but since we're viewing games on a flat 2D screen for the images to look natural and realistic developers need to fake the focal point. It's just one of the many graphical advances that adds that extra bit of realism to the graphics... probably something most people don't even notice.

If you're interested in knowing more about it you can look here: http://www.hardocp.c...e.html?art=OTE3
it's an article about how Valve wanted to use the technique but couldn't based on current hardware limitations (so they faked it). According to the article it had only been used in tech demo's at that point... and an interesting note is that DOA4 was released only days after that article was published.

[KAGE360]

for those who think that FNR3 didnt get extra development time on the ps3 you need to read back to when development started on each version.  

the thing he doesnt realize is that FNR3 did start development first on the ps3. it was revealed when the debut of the 360 version was covered in the Sept 05 issue of gameinformer. i have the mag right in front of me and i quote....

QUOTE

"The talented crew at EA's Chicago Studio began working on the 360 version of Fight Night mere months ago and already it looks nearly identical to the PS3 footage shown at E3."  

so lets take mere months as 3 max, so development probably started around June 05 (the earliest) and the game launched in Feb of 06 (meaning development was probably done around January). the devs that did get ps3 dev kits (epic, EA, kojima) got them around 2 months before E305 (according to epic). so the ps3 had development time from around march until november of 06 compared to the 8 months of development time for the 360.

all this proves to me is how much easier it is to create games on the 360. sure they took the assets from the ps3 version already in development and used them in the 360 version. however it's still impressive that they were able to adapt technology that many thought only the ps3 could handle to the 360 in no time.

about all the excuses about developers not having enough time with the cell: bullshit.  while i dont doubt that code and tools for the ps3 will get much better, i dont see how almost two years of developing for the system "isnt enough time".  

i could be wrong and i hope someone corrects me if i am but i would imagine it would be easier to go from a slower Cell chip and older nvidia card (same architecture in both) to the ps3 VS going from a 2 core, 2 thread 2.8GHz G5 with an old ATI card (NOT unified architecture) to the 360 with a triple core, 6 thread CPU with a unified shader GPU equiped with 10MB of eDRAM.