is the 360 holding back the ps3

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sirsnits

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Messages
1,197
Hi there

FYI: Im not a fanboy or whatever, I have all the consoles and play them all (just to clear the air).

Ok so heres my question and/or thoughts:

The 360 "as fun as it is", is it holding back the ps3 when it comes to multi platform games?, meaning, is the lack of dvd disc space in comparison to bluray capping extra content that could easily fit on a bluray.


Mk vs DC Universe "for example", the graphics are pretty comparable when you put the the two consoles in a side by side comparison, though I cant help but think that the lack of content which may have helped this game, could have made the game that much more enjoyable.

"I know that sales figures are more important for most top end game companies, Especially Midway at the current moment".

I can only think of one culprit being "standard game DVD discs", with graphics and sound being at a much higher level these days, makes it more and more difficult to fit allot of content that the devs originally planned onto a single DVD.

With a bluray disc, that problem is "almost" non existent, since bluray can provide enough space to fit whatever the devs want and maybe more, without sacrificing the graphics and sound.

Im not saying all multi platform games have this issue, GTA is a good example of how to incorporate game data on both consoles and harness the power of both worlds to make an outstanding game.

what are your thoughts on this?

Note: "No childish fanboyism comments, I'm not picking sides, I'm sick of hearing it, just straight out mature discussion please and thank you"
 
95% of games? No. Chances are, if a game is lacking content it's not because of a lack of disc space (devs will make cuts in other places first) but because they don't want to bankrupt themselves developing the game.
 
they could certainly expand games, but that would take more dev time and money. as for higher resolution textures, better graphics, etc, the ps3 nor 360 are that powerful and probably couldn't handle more of that. i mean, how many games even run at 1080p?? i don't think the graphics and sound take up that much space, look at pc games which look better and still fit.
 
Can't they fit better looking, higher resolution textures into the blu ray? Making games look much better? I seem to recall reading that that's not how it works, though.

If not, they surely could make games MUCH longer (GTA 4 for example, could have made it of epic length), but they want the 360 and PS3 versions to be equal. Obviously a company is not going to produce 500 hours of gameplay for one console and 10 for another and expect equal sales
 
Tylerdurdened said:
Can't they fit better looking, higher resolution textures into the blu ray? Making games look much better? I seem to recall reading that that's not how it works, though.
Click to expand...
You still need to be able to fit it into the system memory on the PS3... which is another story. The only advantage would be game length / extra content rather than making a game look better.
 
I am not a technical person. I did not study in computer science. I just play games.

With that said, I don't know how much "content" will take up space on a DVD, let alone a Blu-ray disc. Games suck because the developers suck. Period. It has nothing to do with storage space.

There, I said it.
 
Allos said:
I am not a technical person. I did not study in computer science. I just play games.

With that said, I don't know how much "content" will take up space on a DVD, let alone a Blu-ray disc. Games suck because the developers suck. Period. It has nothing to do with storage space.

There, I said it.
Click to expand...

Tho true, im talking more about high quality games that could have made the cut if they just included a little more without sacrificing quality.
 
As a PSWii60 and PC gamer, I have this to say:

Considering most of the best PS3 games render at 720p (with very few exceptions, such as WipEout HD, which is fun), and I see graphics lag on them even at that resolution, I have very little reason to believe that the PS3 is being "held back" at all.

Let me clarify that I really enjoy my Playstation 3, but compared to the raw power of PC hardware, it's impossible for any console to even come close to its performance. As much as I enjoy my PS3, it constantly aggravates me that they call the 360 and PS3 "next-gen", when all they are equivalent to are 10 year-old computers.

---

Case in point: I just bought Tom Clancy's Endwar for PS3. It's an excellent PS3 game, but at the end of a game, when you can free-roam the map with the camera, the graphics begin to lag when you get close to, say, a poorly-rendered tree. That's just pathetic.
 
pcgeek86 said:
As a PSWii60 and PC gamer, I have this to say:

Considering most of the best PS3 games render at 720p (with very few exceptions, such as WipEout HD, which is fun), and I see graphics lag on them even at that resolution, I have very little reason to believe that the PS3 is being "held back" at all.

Let me clarify that I really enjoy my Playstation 3, but compared to the raw power of PC hardware, it's impossible for any console to even come close to its performance. As much as I enjoy my PS3, it constantly aggravates me that they call the 360 and PS3 "next-gen", when all they are equivalent to are 10 year-old computers.

---

Case in point: I just bought Tom Clancy's Endwar for PS3. It's an excellent PS3 game, but at the end of a game, when you can free-roam the map with the camera, the graphics begin to lag when you get close to, say, a poorly-rendered tree. That's just pathetic.
Click to expand...
Not really. The Cell is the most advanced consumer CPU in existance (as far as I know). It alone has 204 GigaFlops.

And the PS3 GPU is a 7800GT if I'm right, a couple of years old, definitely not 10, but still pretty good.

The GPU and the lousy 256MB RAM are what's holding the PS3 back, but that's a lot, still. I can't think of a way they can make better graphics unless they start emulating some on the Cell (if that can even work). I recall reading that the Cell itself can produce graphics at the speed and quality of a 8800GT (may have been even better)
 
disk space doesn't determine graphics. Also, why do you have quotes around random sentences in your post?
 
from what i've read on this forums, multi-platform games run smoother on the 360, if it's noticable. that might be that developers are basing their standards and benchmarks using the 360 as lowest common denominator, or it could be that the ps3's uber hardware is only great on paper.
 
Technoob said:
disk space doesn't determine graphics. Also, why do you have quotes around random sentences in your post?
Click to expand...

I tend to "quote" myself allot.

Instead of Highlights or CAPS I usually subsitute for quotes.

ME GRAmmEr IS NOte AS GUUD AZ YERZ Is
 
I read way back when Cell was coming out, that its hard to code on the Cell processor. Im not sure if this is a factor now, but this would explain why some games are not cross platform even though they should be.
 
Lazy_Moron said:
I read way back when Cell was coming out, that its hard to code on the Cell processor. Im not sure if this is a factor now, but this would explain why some games are not cross platform even though they should be.
Click to expand...

this is true, but the cell capability has not yet been fully used.
 
duuuuuumb said:
this is true, but the cell capability has not yet been fully used.
Click to expand...

I've heard the same thing, that the cell processor is supposed to be extremely powerful. However, if this really is the case, then why are there plenty of examples of poor performance on the PS3? GTA IV is another example of a game, that doesn't look all that great, that doesn't perform that well graphically on the PS3. It's a great game, but 1) rendering at 720p is unacceptable in my opinion, and 2) if it can't render basic effects at 720p, then there's obviously no hope for it rendering basic graphical effects at 1080p, much less quality effects at 1080p.

As I said, I love my PS3, and have purchased quite a few games for it, but this whole "next-gen" thing is just kind of irritating. I have a Westinghouse 1080p LCD display that's a year and a half old (since I bought it, not since release), and there are about 3 PS3 games I can think of, that I own, that actually use 1080p. That list of 3 games does not include major titles like Little Big Planet, Ratchet & Clank, GTA IV, Burnout Paradise, Civilization Revolution (which has black bars around 1080p displays, ugh), Tom Clancy's Endwar, and so on. That list includes Bionic Command, The Last Guy, and WipEout HD .... and of the 3 of those, WipeEout HD is the most impressive, and honestly, isn't all that impressive. WipEoutHD has pretty basic geometry, and the only thing going for it are the cool dynamic textures it has .... on top of that, even though it's 1080p, it's still heavily aliased! Are they not able to do anti-aliasing? Come on! Impress me for once!
 
pcgeek86 said:
I've heard the same thing, that the cell processor is supposed to be extremely powerful. However, if this really is the case, then why are there plenty of examples of poor performance on the PS3? GTA IV is another example of a game, that doesn't look all that great, that doesn't perform that well graphically on the PS3. It's a great game, but 1) rendering at 720p is unacceptable in my opinion, and 2) if it can't render basic effects at 720p, then there's obviously no hope for it rendering basic graphical effects at 1080p, much less quality effects at 1080p.

As I said, I love my PS3, and have purchased quite a few games for it, but this whole "next-gen" thing is just kind of irritating. I have a Westinghouse 1080p LCD display that's a year and a half old (since I bought it, not since release), and there are about 3 PS3 games I can think of, that I own, that actually use 1080p. That list of 3 games does not include major titles like Little Big Planet, Ratchet & Clank, GTA IV, Burnout Paradise, Civilization Revolution (which has black bars around 1080p displays, ugh), Tom Clancy's Endwar, and so on. That list includes Bionic Command, The Last Guy, and WipEout HD .... and of the 3 of those, WipeEout HD is the most impressive, and honestly, isn't all that impressive. WipEoutHD has pretty basic geometry, and the only thing going for it are the cool dynamic textures it has .... on top of that, even though it's 1080p, it's still heavily aliased! Are they not able to do anti-aliasing? Come on! Impress me for once!
Click to expand...

you can have the worst looking game and have it run at low fps on the nowgen consoles, its all about harnessing the architecture of the cell proc and taking advantage of what it has to offer.
most multiplatform games today face more towards the GPU/VPU cause its easier and faster to code.
 
will sony first party games shouldnt hold the ps3 back? no need to worry about it there.
 
pcgeek86 said:
I've heard the same thing, that the cell processor is supposed to be extremely powerful. However, if this really is the case, then why are there plenty of examples of poor performance on the PS3? GTA IV is another example of a game, that doesn't look all that great, that doesn't perform that well graphically on the PS3. It's a great game, but 1) rendering at 720p is unacceptable in my opinion, and 2) if it can't render basic effects at 720p, then there's obviously no hope for it rendering basic graphical effects at 1080p, much less quality effects at 1080p.

As I said, I love my PS3, and have purchased quite a few games for it, but this whole "next-gen" thing is just kind of irritating. I have a Westinghouse 1080p LCD display that's a year and a half old (since I bought it, not since release), and there are about 3 PS3 games I can think of, that I own, that actually use 1080p. That list of 3 games does not include major titles like Little Big Planet, Ratchet & Clank, GTA IV, Burnout Paradise, Civilization Revolution (which has black bars around 1080p displays, ugh), Tom Clancy's Endwar, and so on. That list includes Bionic Command, The Last Guy, and WipEout HD .... and of the 3 of those, WipeEout HD is the most impressive, and honestly, isn't all that impressive. WipEoutHD has pretty basic geometry, and the only thing going for it are the cool dynamic textures it has .... on top of that, even though it's 1080p, it's still heavily aliased! Are they not able to do anti-aliasing? Come on! Impress me for once!
Click to expand...

Actually the cell doesn't help much in term of graphics but it does help in physics, particles, rubbles, smokes and etc. Just look at MGS4, Resistance, Heavenly Sword, Killzone 2, Warhawk and Resistance 2. If you haven't noticed it yet, there are a lot more actions in the background of those games when compared to XBox 360 games.
 
alg7_munif said:
Actually the cell doesn't help much in term of graphics but it does help in physics, particles, rubbles, smokes and etc. Just look at MGS4, Resistance, Heavenly Sword, Killzone 2, Warhawk and Resistance 2. If you haven't noticed it yet, there are a lot more actions in the background of those games when compared to XBox 360 games.
Click to expand...

It does indeed.
 
Posting from the PS3 now... I really want true music playback in game. But, correct me if I'm mistaken, Microsoft apparently holds a very broad patent on it, which I can see as a decent hold up for the PS3.
 
the only thing holding back the ps3 is the fact that it isn't a must have system. it is for me, but i just recently got back into console gaming after a lenghty hiatus which began when doom 3 launched. hardcore console gamers picked up on next-gen when it launched with the xbox360.

sony came late to the party with a higher price tag and nothing revolutionary that the xbox360 can't do, aside from displaying blu-ray movies.

it's a system for those who must own bleeding edge hardware and have some expendable income, but there are other ways to obtain the same entertainment; xbox360 and a standalone blu-ray player, a gaming pc with a blu-ray drive, a high powered automatic rifle with 10000 rounds and 6000 empty bottles.

sure, the ps3 can play games and blu-ray discs, but so what? if lbp and home (broken as it currently is) are sony's prime examples of must have software designed to push sales of the ps3, well, that's trouble for their (our) relatively new and fragile online community. xbox360 owners already have their killer apps, they're laughing at how incomplete home is and they just picked up a blu-ray player for cheap on cyber-monday. not many can say much against the game of the year... but i wouldn't spend $500 to play it like i would for gran turismo and i think the sales figures echo my sentiments.

i personally own 10 ps3 games, and over half of them qualify to me as killer apps, but for sony's sake, killzone 2, god of war 3 and gran turismo 5 had better measure up to the hype-machine projections because apparently many people don't feel the need to clutter up their entertainment centre with additional components.

i, however, am positive that those titles will measure up and likely exceed previously set marks for excellence in gaming. but of course, that's just the sony fanboy in me. ;)

the dark knight looks killer on blu-ray, if nothing else.

oh, and ps3 folds.


edit: i forgot to mention resistance 2. apparently that's good too. i haven't played it.
edit 2: of course, price cut would help get the more frugal consumers more interested.
 
I've always wondered this myself. I own Wii/360/PS3/PC and at first thought the 360 was the best. After playing around with the PS3 a bit more it made me think that the 360 was rushed to the shelves to just to beat the PS3 launch date. It did not have high-def video playback or wi-fi, and at first didn't even have HDMI. Add to that the RROD and it raises interesting questions. Play MGS4 and it blows away anything I have played on my 360, which is modded so I've played a lot of games on it :p I put the PS3 in a somewhat same category as a PC, it COSTS MORE. People are cheap and poor leading to high 360 sales. Add to that the fact that the 360 was released around 1 year earlier than the PS3 and it's easy to see that it has vastly outsold it's competitor. Most developers would design a game for the 360 before the PS3 since most console gamers would own a 360. I just wished more games were designed for the PS3 and then ported to the 360 instead of the opposite.
 
The PS3 is an awesome platform with a lot of great exclusives:
  • Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
  • Ratchet & Clank Future: Quest for Booty
  • Little Big Planet
  • WipEout HD
  • Warhawk
  • M.A.G. (when it comes out)
  • Valkyria Chronicles
  • Uncharted
  • MotorStorm

etc ....

What's not to love about the PS3? Also, you don't have to pay for absolutely everything you download from the Playstation Store, which can't really be said about the 360.

Also, the media playback capabilities on the PS3 completely rival the 360. Also, the 360 has broken things like Dolby Digital 5.1 output and other quirks that just make it a pain to deal with. And let's not forget about the fact that you have to pay to play games you already bought online :rolleyes:
 
^^ i agree, though i can't comment on what's broken with current xbox360 hardware, having never used one for longer than a session of rock band 2 or gears of war at a friends house.

theirs worked, looked and sounded good to me.
 
do we REALLY need another console vs console thread? go play your damn games, stop arguing like idiots over what is "better" than the other. If you enjoy what you have, that's all that matters.
 
snaggletooth said:
^^ i agree, though i can't comment on what's broken with current xbox360 hardware, having never used one for longer than a session of rock band 2 or gears of war at a friends house.
Click to expand...

Just the other day, I was trying to get Dolby Digital 5.1 to work on my 360, since I had never had surround sound. I just upgraded my receiver, bought some more speakers, and wall-mounted my LCD panel, so I wanted a more immersive experience.

My PS3 had no issues outputting Dolby Digital 5.1 through my LCD via HDMI, then back out from the LCD to the receiver via a TOSLINK cable. The 360 just doesn't work at all, and there are tons of posts out there about, including one here on the HardForum that I bumped back up to see if anyone had fixed it. Turns out it's still broken after the latest 360 firmware update. :rolleyes:

Not only that, but I can't play any of my games online because somebody wants more money. :rolleyes:

*facepalm*
 
tskiller said:
do we REALLY need another console vs console thread? go play your damn games, stop arguing like idiots over what is "better" than the other. If you enjoy what you have, that's all that matters.
Click to expand...
Objective arguments for or against one platform or another is considered "arguing like idiots?"

Maybe to you it is, but then again, no one asked you.

Also, since you mentioned it .. the only reason I'm posting here is because I took a break from playing MotorStorm on my PS3 to check e-mail and whatnot.
 
Well, in my opinion the 360 isn't holding the ps3 back from anything. Most the games that have come out in the last year have mostly been optimized for the ps3 . I can't swing for one system,though. I love them both and to be honest pc tech maybe more cutting edge but isn't as accessable to most gamers who arn't tech heads. To be honest, even though the games on pc look better, most don't play better. Theres alot of crap that is shoved onto pc. Consoles have better game quality . again not to offend anyone I just stated my opinion I love 360,pc,and ps3.
 
Azulthewise said:
Well, in my opinion the 360 isn't holding the ps3 back from anything. Most the games that have come out in the last year have mostly been optimized for the ps3 . I can't swing for one system,though. I love them both and to be honest pc tech maybe more cutting edge but isn't as accessable to most gamers who arn't tech heads. To be honest, even though the games on pc look better, most don't play better. Theres alot of crap that is shoved onto pc. Consoles have better game quality . again not to offend anyone I just stated my opinion I love 360,pc,and ps3.
Click to expand...

100% agree
 
Well, I agree that some games play better on consoles, but only certain ones. FPS and most RTS games belong exclusively on the PC, but other than that, a lot of platformer games play really well with a controller, like Little Big Planet, Ratchet & Clank, etc.
 
I wish I didn't have to see crappy blocky super compressed 720p cut scenes from the 360 ;/
 
pcgeek86 said:
Not only that, but I can't play any of my games online because somebody wants more money. :rolleyes:

*facepalm*
Click to expand...

You can play online with the 360...you just don't want to pay. However, this was made clear since the launch of the 360. This is not exactly new news, so there should be no need to complain.

Let's try to keep the flames elsewhere.
 
To the OP I don't think the DVD is holding back graphics. The size limitation holds back content like more levels, characters, etc. Graphics on the current consoles are held back by their GPU's and very limiting 256mb of video memory (512mb shared with the system in X360's case). Looking at PC games, Fallout 3 is only 6GB, Tomb Raider Underworld is 7GB, sure their are larger games, but you don't need 50GB to have good graphics. We all know the PC with a good video card blows away consoles in the graphic department and its not because of harddrive space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top