Print

[PS3Scene]

PS3, 360 offer 'much the same' opportunities, says Sega Rally dev Posted by XanTium | 21-6-2007 15:03 EST

From gamesindustry.biz: PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 afford developers "pretty much the same" opportunities at the moment, according to Sega Racing Studio boss Guy Wilday. "Sony always create very technically innovative hardware and always have. PlayStation 3 is no different in that respect," Wilday told GamesIndustry.biz in an exclusive interview published today. But Xbox 360 development is "simpler", according to the veteran developer, whose previous experience includes stints on Codemasters' Colin McRae Rally series. "The flipside of very innovative hardware is that it takes you a while to get up to speed with it. The learning curve is steeper in that you have to get into it and understand exactly what the benefits are, and understand exactly how to do certain things to get the most out of the platform," Wilday says of PlayStation 3. "With Xbox 360 obviously development is simpler. The development tools and support you have are obviously excellent. So that really is the trade-off." Full Story: gamesindustry.biz

[incognegro]

Still dont understand why ppl think there is some huge graphic potential in the ps3 thats gonna smoke evrything on the market.

'much the same'

[BillMan]

QUOTE(incognegro @ Jun 22 2007, 03:06 AM)

Still dont understand why ppl think there is some huge graphic potential in the ps3 thats gonna smoke evrything on the market. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/uhh.gif)

'much the same'

The reason is because of the user,  the user designs graphics to be that high of quality.  You got to remember, when a new system comes out, the graphics seem better, that is because they have certain levels for a game to be designed for.

The ps3 can handle nwe graphics like a new console coming out, jsut that people dont design them to be to the fullest potential.   So better graphics do exist with the playstation 3, just that we need the developers to actually take the time to do so.

But, in time, this will kick ass once more games are created.

Just wait for the new Final Fantasy.  That will be the ultimate.

[incognegro]

QUOTE(BillMan @ Jun 22 2007, 05:41 AM)

The reason is because of the user,  the user designs graphics to be that high of quality.  You got to remember, when a new system comes out, the graphics seem better, that is because they have certain levels for a game to be designed for.

The ps3 can handle nwe graphics like a new console coming out, jsut that people dont design them to be to the fullest potential.   So better graphics do exist with the playstation 3, just that we need the developers to actually take the time to do so.

But, in time, this will kick ass once more games are created.

Just wait for the new Final Fantasy.  That will be the ultimate.

right....whatever u say, man. I kinda know a thing or two about the hardware in the systems and i can tell u that grafix should be "much the same". All the ps3 has going for it is a faster cpu and that alone will never make the grafix seem any much better than the 360. That "because its new it must be better" explanation makles know sense. Both systems aren't at there full potential, better grafix exists in both consoles.

[Aerok]

QUOTE(incognegro @ Jun 22 2007, 12:12 PM)

right....whatever u say, man. I kinda know a thing or two about the hardware in the systems and i can tell u that grafix should be "much the same". All the ps3 has going for it is a faster cpu and that alone will never make the grafix seem any much better than the 360. That "because its new it must be better" explanation makles know sense. Both systems aren't at there full potential, better grafix exists in both consoles.

Maybe knowing how to spell might encourage us to think you know a thing or two about hardware.

Reading your signature, it's obvious you are biased... Just admit it, you're purely a xbox fanboy.

This post has been edited by Aerok: Jun 22 2007, 04:24 PM

[twistedsymphony]

I don't understand how anyone can possibly "know" what the graphics will be like deeper into this generation... just because something looks good on paper doesn't mean it will ever deliver up to expectations.

There are consoles in every generation that never got the opportunity to live up to their potential. Sometimes because they were just too difficult to program for that they never reached that level, other times because developer support was so weak they never put in the effort, and sometimes it just took so damn long to progress it that the console was canceled before it even got a chance to shine.

Anyone making bold claims about non-existent graphics in the future, like it's some kind of unequivocal truth, is worthy of the fanboy label.

Comparing games out today is one thing... SPECULATING based on past performance and data sheets is another... laying absolute claim with nothing concrete to back you up is just overzealous flag-waving.

[BillMan]

Just remember,  the hardware in the PS3 has allready been claimed to be able out perform the X360

The blueray player is the only thing that is keeping the PS3 alive I agree.

And the potential for True HD games exist on the PS3.

So that is another reason why it is harder to program for,  So the games dont have to be upscalled to HD.

or no quality cut back and etc.


It will ge tthier but time will have to wait to shine

[Sweeet]

The ps3 has greater graphics potential simply because the cell processor can cut out the crap a normal gpu has to do, it's just they don't know how to program it to do so yet. Something the 360 will never be able to do.

So even though the 360 preforms better as a 'standard' gpu, that means nothing once the ps3 gets the ball rolling.

And this has been confirmed by many game developers, one even in this forum.

[Molten Universe]

Mmm as someone said above, the whole better cuz it's newer thing is bullshit.

The PS3 may have seven cores and a cell or whatever etc...

If you can't figure out what to do with all those things, you can never live up to what its' "potential" is.

It's like going to see what you think is gonna be a real good movie, great cast of critcally acclaimed actors etc.. and then you walk out saying that it was shit for many reasons.

Remember kiddies, more isn't always better.

The End.

This post has been edited by Molten Universe: Jun 24 2007, 10:02 AM

[Sweeet]

QUOTE(Molten Universe @ Jun 24 2007, 10:01 AM)

Mmm as someone said above, the whole better cuz it's newer thing is bullshit.

The PS3 may have seven cores and a cell or whatever etc...

If you can't figure out what to do with all those things, you can never live up to what its' "potential" is.

It's like going to see what you think is gonna be a real good movie, great cast of critcally acclaimed actors etc.. and then you walk out saying that it was shit for many reasons.

Remember kiddies, more isn't always better.

The End.

And when Steven Spielberg started making movies did he churn out Hollywood blockbusters from the get-go? No, he had potential and he realised it.

While yes there's a big difference between realising potential and providing results, in this case those results can only get better and better. Where-as the 360 is fast approaching its best.

It doesn’t matter how much practise you undertake, if you’re only 4ft tall, you’re never going to make that 8ft high-jump. And the PS3 is feet ahead of the rest, just needs a little practise with its new found growth.

I'm not a fanboy, just a realist who would like to see the PS3 grow to its true potential. But some people would see fit to kick it before it's had a chance to get off the ground. Remember we're not dealing with a piece of hardware based on an end-user pc in which they've been programming games for decades. We're dealing with a highly powerful sophisticated piece of modern technology.

Some would argue too sophisticated. And while that may hold true now as sophistication costs game developers time and money. As our understanding of this technology greatens so will the greatness of the games developers produce.

Does the PS3 have enough time to shine? Well if I knew the answers to questions like that I’d be feckin' loaded! Alas I’m not  

[throwingks]

^ if the goal is an 8 foot high jump and the 360 is only 4 ft tall, then the PS3 is only 4 1/4.

It doesn't matter how much time you take. The difference is not enough, neither are gonna make that 8 foot high jump.

The difference in potential graphics between the 2 is so small, and with the quality of today's graphics already, is any of this relevant to determining which is the better console? No. Games make the console, not specs nor potential.

This post has been edited by throwingks: Jun 25 2007, 12:04 AM

[Sweeet]

No not really, but peoples expectations seem to be solely based on what can be performed graphically. And considering they're both next-gen consoles it's not entirely irrelevant either.

You're right though, game-play is king.

[throwingks]

Absolutely.

Graphics can be the icing on the cake, but noone wants a cake made entirely of icing.

I claim that, I just made that up right now. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by throwingks: Jun 25 2007, 12:41 AM

[Sweeet]

Very fitting

[thax]

One thing that we don't need to speculate on is that it is cheaper and easier for a cross platform developer to use the same assets for both systems.

Even if the PS3 is more powerful, it will only be used to make porting easier.

Most of the games will look almost identical. This isn't like the last generation where you could look at a screenshot in a magazine and be able to tell if it was PS2 or xbox. This point is hammered home when Sony and affiliates are accidently using x360 screenshots as PS3 screenshots.