Post by: PS3Scene on November 28, 2006, 11:14:00 PM
What the CELL is going on? Posted by XanTium | 29-11-2006 0:38 EST |
| From 1up.com: Quote
Read More: 1up.com (incl. video/picture compare) |
Post by: silentbob343 on November 28, 2006, 11:06:00 PM
Post by: Pheidias on November 28, 2006, 11:03:00 PM
cos this is one of the worst bashes I've seen for a while.On another note
What is up with the colors on the RR6 and Blazing angels 360 shots
Post by: silentbob343 on November 28, 2006, 11:53:00 PM
QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 29 2006, 02:10 AM) 
Hehe journalism at its finest.. Can't believe it took three people to do that and they couldn't acctually produce real images (16:9 full size) or even good comparison shots. MS should demand their money back for this one (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) cos this is one of the worst bashes I've seen for a while.
On another note
What is up with the colors on the RR6 and Blazing angels 360 shots
Yeah I was surprised by the yellow hue on blazing angles.
From a post I made elsewhere;
"You'll notice, of course, most of these are ports, but if you look at Fight Night for the PS3 you can see more detail on the fighters. This shouldn't be surprising as EA had more time to optimize the game for the PS3 hardware than most of those other titles. This tells us that developers aren't going to really put forth much effort making optimizations and I feel that games for both systems will end looking pretty much the same. I can't blame the developers as that is alot of time and money to optimize for two consoles."
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 29 2006, 07:55 AM
Post by: Pheidias on November 28, 2006, 11:35:00 PM
What I'd wanna know is how they exactly do these cross platform titles. On which platform do they start their development, PC?
On another note, dx10 is a beautiful thing. Wonder how the 360 version will stack up.
Post by: Hmerly on November 29, 2006, 12:13:00 AM
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 12:02:00 AM
QUOTE(Hmerly @ Nov 29 2006, 02:44 AM) 
The reason there's so much overharping on the gfx of PS3 games is simply the expectations that people from Sony raised when they say all this stuff about how much better the PS3 is compared to the Xbox 360. Saying things like Next gen doesn't start until we say it does, or the Xbox 360 is more Xbox 1.5. For them to say all this stuff, which I feel is very unprofessional (just let your product stand on its merits, not go around like a fanboy and making fun of your competition), and then release a system a whole year later and have it land with a thud like the PS3 has is the reason why you see these comparison pieces all over. On the whole crossplatform PS3 games have looked worse and run worse. Its natural, and deserving for Sony to get criticized.
I agree Sony overhyped the crap out of the PS3. I'm a realist by nature and I knew it was just hype so when I played it for the firs time I was fairly happy. Yes, I have played many hours of 360 as well so it wasn't like I hadn't seen a next gen game either.
I see this thread degrading as most of the campro threads.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 29, 2006, 03:22:00 AM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 28 2006, 11:24 PM)
...but if you look at Fight Night for the PS3 you can see more detail on the fighters. This shouldn't be surprising as EA had more time to optimize the game for the PS3 hardware than most of those other titles..
Time spent optimizing FN3 is not the only reason the boxers look better.
The top is the ps3, and bottom 360.
Do you notice anything peculiar?
Look at the background crowd and tables. In the ps3 version everything is 2D sprites, so virtually no hardware power went into the background. Whereas on the 360's version, the crowd and furniture is fully 3D polygonal and the crowd is fully animated.
Sneaky little devils.
Post by: redwolf on November 29, 2006, 03:58:00 AM
QUOTE
"Cmon you had one full year to do something better or just as good a xbox 360s online features and the best you give me is some psp display? I cant chat with friends no matter what game im playing, i cant send invites to games while in game, the messaging is garbage and i cant check it unless i leave the game. This is unacceptable!!!! This system is full of dissapointments the sony store takes forever to download stuff, certain games play only at 720p and not at 1080i, the nhl 2k7 server doesnt work and this has been for days not 1 or 2 hours or even a day, DAYS!!! I send a friend invite to someone on resistance and it doesnt add them to my friends list on my console, this is the sorriest excuse for seamless online gaming community. there is no community, there is friends on my console, friends on resistance, no friends on nhl cause it doesnt work and my 1 friend on nba 2k7 cause there is never anyone online. so sony buy a 360 because they are available and check out how a real gaming community is ran, I mean i understand this is a free service but if you offered a 360 like enviornment for any amount of cash I would take it over this sorry excuse of a online gaming community. I like the console but it is lacking in online features, so please sony do something about this quick before you prove all the naysayers right that ps3 online is a joke and ps, a web browser doesnt make up for lack functional online gaming community. (but it is nice)"
posted elsewhere...
Post by: Uradox on November 29, 2006, 05:58:00 AM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 29 2006, 06:29 PM)
Look at the background crowd and tables. In the ps3 version everything is 2D sprites, so virtually no hardware power went into the background. Whereas on the 360's version, the crowd and furniture is fully 3D polygonal and the crowd is fully animated.
Sneaky little devils.
Very well spoted (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) i was focusing on the vein on the guys arm in the top pic, then read your comment. Thats just dodgy for 'next gen' seriously really dodgy.....
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 29, 2006, 05:48:00 AM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 29 2006, 05:29 AM)
Time spent optimizing FN3 is not the only reason the boxers look better.
The top is the ps3, and bottom 360.
Do you notice anything peculiar?
Look at the background crowd and tables. In the ps3 version everything is 2D sprites, so virtually no hardware power went into the background. Whereas on the 360's version, the crowd and furniture is fully 3D polygonal and the crowd is fully animated.
Sneaky little devils.
wow, good catch
I also noticed the top picture has some jaggy action going on, where the bottom one doesn't at all.
This is something that you can't see AT ALL from the 1up shots because they shrunk the images, which effectively super-samples out all of the jaggies.
There's also a bunch of other crap in the comparison that bothers me like the fact they couldn't adjust the in-game contrast ratio for COD3, or the fact that in NFS carbon one of the cars is boosting during the screen-shot on one side but not the other making a worthwhile comparison useless.
On a whole though what I gathered from this comparison is that games where developers had more time to work on the PS3 version: Ridge Racer, FNR3, Full Auto, etc. They were able to make the important stuff look better, but on games where they came out at the same time: THP8, COD3, Marvel, Tiger Woods etc. they look about the same with a few games looking just slightly better on the 360 (probably due to having a years worth of experience on the console).
I'm sure real comparisons wont be very useful until we see the xplat titles coming out next holiday when developers have experience with both consoles but in general I think it's safe to say the two consoles are fairly well matched graphically.
Post by: incognegro on November 29, 2006, 08:06:00 AM
This post has been edited by incognegro: Nov 29 2006, 04:11 PM
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 08:45:00 AM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 29 2006, 06:29 AM)
Time spent optimizing FN3 is not the only reason the boxers look better.
[img]http://images.playsyde.com/gallery/public/4609/807_0013.jpg[/ig]
[img]http://images.xboxyde.com/gallery/public/2695/807_0008.jpg[/ig]
The top is the ps3, and bottom 360.
Do you notice anything peculiar?
Look at the background crowd and tables. In the ps3 version everything is 2D sprites, so virtually no hardware power went into the background. Whereas on the 360's version, the crowd and furniture is fully 3D polygonal and the crowd is fully animated.
Sneaky little devils.
Yes, I've seen that before. I heard they are placeholders, but I guess we'll see when it comes out.
Good catch Incog I didn't even see that when I watched the vid.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 29 2006, 04:59 PM
Post by: Exist2Resist on November 29, 2006, 10:04:00 AM
Post by: KaRiL on November 29, 2006, 10:09:00 AM
QUOTE(Exist2Resist @ Nov 29 2006, 08:35 AM)
I personally know of so many people, that have switched to the 360 from the PS camp. Mainly because they were completely fooled by sony to think that the sony system is better compared to the 360. Fact is this is not true, yeah it has blue ray, but thats about it. Besides with the Wii releasing an HD DVD add on, i think the HD DVD will be a clear winner, although it is definately too early to tell.
huh?? where did you hear that? ....you been reading the inquirer again?its DVD playback, not HD DVD, and its not an add on, and its completely useless
Link to stupid, false inquirer article
Link quoted in article as source
Post by: shocwave on November 29, 2006, 12:18:00 PM
Notice the 'arm' sticking out on the far left of the ps3 screenshot.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 12:36:00 PM
PS3 background there is a vertical window with wire mesh at the top on the 360 there is a vertical blur. Although I think I like the shorts on the 360 characters better.
Post by: Bizquick on November 29, 2006, 02:57:00 PM
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 03:50:00 PM
QUOTE(Bizquick @ Nov 29 2006, 05:28 PM)
These 2 pictures are hard to tell by. I'm thinking that the reason the detail is so clear on the PS3 on the close up is. the fighter is either been thru more rounds and more warmed up. also this could be a video chip rendering issue. you are working with 2 different brands on GFX chips one the 36 is ATI. and I thought the sony picked Nvidia but I could be wrong. In either case I did expect the PS3 to acutaly look better than the ATI GFX chip. I dont belive much time was spent one extra development on the PS3 version. I think honestly what we are seeing is just how one GFX chip accepted the same commands. and I doubt you will see many companys spend much effort on the differances between platforms. remember the video game companies are betting on sales and Dev time is expensive. EA has so many titles they have to meet on deadlines I thing is game is just like most of the others. The devs had only so much time to play with it.
Sony is using an NVIDIA based GPU and MS is using an ATI based GPU. The two use very different architectures with the 360 being more advanced. The RSX is G70 based and if you look at NVIDIAs newest GPU, the G80, you see they followed ATI in going to shader units instead of the traditional pipelines. More time was spent on the Sony version as you can't easily port a game between either system so it's not just the PS3 adding detail that wasn't there EA had to add it in.
Reading your post again I find it very funny; "also this could be a video chip rendering issue. you are working with 2 different brands on GFX chips". Well, yeah.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 29 2006, 11:54 PM
Post by: Mr Invader on November 29, 2006, 03:50:00 PM
Two different yet evenly experienced companies make a similar game for the 360 and PS3, one company to the PS3, the other to the 360. These games were to absolutely push both systems to the limit on graphics, gameplay, file compression, and innovation. By the end of it, the games are equal in graphics, the PS3 has better sound since it has 7.1, but the 360 would have better AI, cleaner gameplay, and it would be out several months before the PS3 counterpart.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 03:53:00 PM
QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 29 2006, 06:21 PM)
How about this?
Two different yet evenly experienced companies make a similar game for the 360 and PS3, one company to the PS3, the other to the 360. These games were to absolutely push both systems to the limit on graphics, gameplay, file compression, and innovation. By the end of it, the games are equal in graphics, the PS3 has better sound since it has 7.1, but the 360 would have better AI, cleaner gameplay, and it would be out several months before the PS3 counterpart.
FUD (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 29 2006, 11:54 PM
Post by: Mr Invader on November 29, 2006, 03:25:00 PM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 29 2006, 04:24 PM)
FUD
QUOTE
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
http://en.wikipedia....ainty_and_doubt
No, not really FUD, considering i don't doubt it. And I never said that the 360 version would be 100% better. Both would be close, and both would still be amazing.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 04:04:00 PM
QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 29 2006, 06:32 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt
No, not really FUD, considering i don't doubt it. And I never said that the 360 version would be 100% better. Both would be close, and both would still be amazing.
I know you don't doubt what you said. Those are what you are spreading with such broad sweeping generalizations. I have no hard feelings and don't really mean much by it.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 30 2006, 12:09 AM
Post by: giza on November 29, 2006, 05:55:00 PM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 29 2006, 08:07 PM)
Also notice in the 360 pictures that everything in the 360 background has been blurred and softened to hell. Ropes, lights, wall, tables, chairs, etc.
PS3 background there is a vertical window with wire mesh at the top on the 360 there is a vertical blur. Although I think I like the shorts on the 360 characters better.
Yes I noticed that the picture in the background of the 360 is blurry also, but which would you want to play, one with a more realistic blurred image in the background similar to modern photography (meaning in closup shots the background is not the primary focal point, the object being photographed is) or one with 2D stick figures? Sure you can see the detail in the fighters arms, but in my opinion it just doesn't look realistic.
By the way, I own but a PSOne, PSP, XBOX, XBOX360, Nintendo WII, Nintendo DS and PS2; therefore, this is not fanboy talk. Once the PS3 drops in price, I will get one of those as well. Right now, regardless how great the graphics get with the next round of games, the system is not worth the current cost. Another point is that the launch lineup for the PS3 just does not appeal to me. At least right now the 360 has a larger selection of good games (yeah I know they had a year head start).
This post has been edited by giza: Nov 30 2006, 01:58 AM
Post by: smair1984 on November 29, 2006, 07:48:00 PM
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 08:18:00 PM
QUOTE(giza @ Nov 29 2006, 08:26 PM)
Yes I noticed that the picture in the background of the 360 is blurry also, but which would you want to play, one with a more realistic blurred image in the background similar to modern photography (meaning in closup shots the background is not the primary focal point, the object being photographed is) or one with 2D stick figures? Sure you can see the detail in the fighters arms, but in my opinion it just doesn't look realistic.
By the way, I own but a PSOne, PSP, XBOX, XBOX360, Nintendo WII, Nintendo DS and PS2; therefore, this is not fanboy talk. Once the PS3 drops in price, I will get one of those as well. Right now, regardless how great the graphics get with the next round of games, the system is not worth the current cost. Another point is that the launch lineup for the PS3 just does not appeal to me. At least right now the 360 has a larger selection of good games (yeah I know they had a year head start).
Yeah I'll take the sharper image. My point was to those saying the crowd on the PS3 was to save processing power, but perhaps the blurred background on the 360 served the same purpose. Also the 360 crowd in the picture does not look 3D, just blurred over 2D.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 30 2006, 04:30 AM
Post by: latinoman231982 on November 29, 2006, 09:20:00 PM
I dont know who else is aware of this, but EA are officially supporting the bluray format. Which makes it the only VIDEO GAME company to take a side in the battle between hd dvd vs bluray format wars. For the time being. So it is pretty obvious sony has thrown some cash in there direction.
Its no surprise EA are trying there best to make the ps3 versions of their titles look and play better. And for those people not in the know, manyl probably think this is down to the game being in bluray format. Well at least, that is what it seems like they are doing.
EA and sony got alot of things in common and one of these things is screwing people for money. I mean seriously!!! How many fifas do i need??????!!!???
Anyway the point im trying to makes is that regarding EA, its GUARANTEED FACT that in future EA are gonna spend more time on ps3 titles, then convert to 360. Whethers other developers are vice versa. You Guys gotta remember that fight night 3 was originally penned for ps3, but cause of delays we got it first.
Post by: latinoman231982 on November 29, 2006, 09:37:00 PM
Before i get slammed for being biased, which iam by the way. i want to say why.
Now, i dont just blame this on sony i blame it on consumers, which some of them i like to call LIGHT WEIGHTS. Back in the day when sega and nintendo ruled, gaming was amazing, then along came this company called sony. Sony fed there crap to the public about ps1. Now the smart move they done wAS SHOW OFF THE 3D CAPABILITY of there beloved console. Which in turn fooled LIGHT WEIGHTS into thinking 3D was more important than gameplay. You see i know companies are in business to make money, thats obvious. Fact of life. But unlike sega and nintendo back in the day up till now, sony dont give a flying mo0nkeys about GOOD GAMES. FUN GAMES. INNOVATIVE GAMES. NO NO NO sony care about money and thats all. For years i watched one sequel after another being released on this sony format, then on to the ps2, then i KNOW on to the ps3.
I am full of anger, yes, call me sad. The only positive thing sony has done in its life time is make gaming more acceptable, more cool apparently. But what has this cost us hardcore fun loving gamers of yesteryear?????
Shall i tell u?????
Shed loads of misery, sequel after sequel, games with no substance, idiots that think ps3 is more powerful cause it has bluray drive.
You know what im wasting my time, all im trying to say is i hope microsoft play a major role in the downfall of sony, and for the time being i am gonna go off and play my nintendo wii. Cause unlike sony nintendo know how to make games which are just like the good old days. Seriously id rather clean my ass with my bare hands than put my mitts on a ps3 pad. SIONARA
Post by: silentbob343 on November 29, 2006, 09:42:00 PM
You stop buying Madden and FIFA then EA will stop making them, but really why do you give a shit? There are plenty of football fans that enjoy them. No, I'm not one of them. Nobody is twisting your arm to buy them. Shit, like MS didn't bring douchebag frat boy gamers to a whole new fucking level with the Xbox. Squel after Sequel.....hmm like Halo 1-2 and 3, GoW trilogy, PGR, Forza, EA games also on the xbox, etc? How about all the Final Fantasy titles on the NES and SNES. Maybe series sell because people like them, I know it's a hard concept. OH......and go play Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Super Smash Brother, etc on the Wii, they aren't sequels right? Hypocrite. Nintedo just keeps recyling their IP in to new games for every console worse than Sony or Nintendo.
If Sony didn't ruin gaming, by making it so popular (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) your savior, MS, might never have gotten in to it.
You people are all nuts.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 30 2006, 05:55 AM
Post by: Uradox on November 30, 2006, 02:08:00 AM
QUOTE(giza @ Nov 30 2006, 08:26 AM)
Yes I noticed that the picture in the background of the 360 is blurry also, but which would you want to play, one with a more realistic blurred image in the background similar to modern photography (meaning in closup shots the background is not the primary focal point, the object being photographed is) or one with 2D stick figures? Sure you can see the detail in the fighters arms, but in my opinion it just doesn't look realistic.
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.
QUOTE(latinoman231982 @ Nov 30 2006, 12:08 PM)
Now, i dont just blame this on sony i blame it on consumers, which some of them i like to call LIGHT WEIGHTS. Back in the day when sega and nintendo ruled, gaming was amazing, then along came this company called sony. Sony fed there crap to the public about ps1. Now the smart move they done wAS SHOW OFF THE 3D CAPABILITY of there beloved console. Which in turn fooled LIGHT WEIGHTS into thinking 3D was more important than gameplay. You see i know companies are in business to make money, thats obvious. Fact of life. But unlike sega and nintendo back in the day up till now, sony dont give a flying mo0nkeys about GOOD GAMES. FUN GAMES. INNOVATIVE GAMES. NO NO NO sony care about money and thats all.
Thats a bit dramatic
Sony do care about good games, but i tend to think they care more about their home fans (which is a good thing). They get perhaps over-excited about their products and let slip shit they shouldnt really say.
The problem I think was Sega and nintendo have been around since donkeys years in gaming, where as in the 90's (the newer generation) Sony was new and were marketing the hell out of their new products. The new generation of gamers adopted the new generation sony PS1. Sony were also making great quality hardware back then so their good name pushed them far. These days I think they are still riding off their success in the 90's but the train is starting to slow down. They have very strong competition that is equally dedicated to providing us with the best experience. One company focus's on the very american world while the other focuses on the japanese world.
Post by: incognegro on November 30, 2006, 06:31:00 AM
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.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 30, 2006, 08:59:00 AM
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
Post by: twistedsymphony on November 30, 2006, 11:40:00 AM
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.
Post by: KAGE360 on November 30, 2006, 05:58:00 PM
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.