All the proof you need the PS3 is at least as powerful as the 360

MooglePorn · 11-08-2007, 06:17 PM

Check out this Call of Duty 4 comparison:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/ps3--...own-320209.php

Call of Duty 4 looks exactly the same on both platforms, PS3 and 360. The game also runs at 60fps on both platforms, locked, with no screen tearing.

Infinity Ward made statements before that they were putting the time into learning the PS3, and I guess this shows how that little bit of extra effort makes a product consumers deserve. No bullshit cop-outs, no blaming the hardware or Sony, just a developer doing what they should, making the game look as best it can on the hardware they release it on.

Kudos to Infinity Ward, the bar has been set and it's time for 3rd parties to stop complaining and put in the damn effort. Infinity Ward is even a PC developer first and foremost, which makes their PS3 effort all the more impressive. Honestly I wish I bought the PS3 version now, knowing it's the same...

Ruined · 11-08-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Check out this Call of Duty 4 comparison:

http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/ps3--...own-320209.php

Call of Duty 4 looks exactly the same on both platforms, PS3 and 360. The game also runs at 60fps on both platforms, locked, with no screen tearing.

Infinity Ward made statements before that they were putting the time into learning the PS3, and I guess this shows how that little bit of extra effort makes a product consumers deserve. No bullshit cop-outs, no blaming the hardware or Sony, just a developer doing what they should, making the game look as best it can on the hardware they release it on.

Kudos to Infinity Ward, the bar has been set and it's time for 3rd parties to stop complaining and put in the damn effort. Infinity Ward is even a PC developer first and foremost, which makes their PS3 effort all the more impressive. Honestly I wish I bought the PS3 version now, knowing it's the same...

The problem is not in the effort, the problem is whether there is a profit to that effort. Let's say Infinity Ward has to dedicate an extra 1-2 months of manpower to make the PS3 version match the 360 version. Will Infinity Ward make back that 1-2 months of manpower (salaries, etc) in sales that they wouldn't have got if they released an inferior PS3 version? Bigger companies like EA probably would think not, and hence simply cut stuff out of the PS3 version to make it presentable if not as good as the 360 version.

ganthc · 11-08-2007, 07:24 PM

I think Moogle's point is that you have the "versus" thread trying to show that the 360 is better than the ps3. But apparently if any effort is put into the ps3 version, it is equal in quality to the 360 version. Which means that the 360 getting better ratings is not due to superior hardware, but to the ps3 not getting a decent version.

umainebearman · 11-08-2007, 07:32 PM

1 out of 50. Not a good ratio for ps 3 owners. Activision being the one putting the money behind COD 4 I'm sure gave IW more man power to figure out what actually makes the ps 3 programming labyrinth tick. Activision knew this would be a big seller an knew they'd get a big return for putting some balls behind IW.

Of course since cod 4 has a huge online component and the 360 is more online friendly I would assume the smart dual platform owners would go for the 360 version.

They've been planning this game since cod 2 finished up so it's not like time was an issue. Just Sonys insane programming architecture.

Ruined · 11-08-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganthc

I think Moogle's point is that you have the "versus" thread trying to show that the 360 is better than the ps3. But apparently if any effort is put into the ps3 version, it is equal in quality to the 360 version. Which means that the 360 getting better ratings is not due to superior hardware, but to the ps3 not getting a decent version.

The term superior hardware very much includes programming efficiency. You can make the PS3 run okay, but you have to put in far more money to get it to run okay compared to the competition. Therefore, the competition's hardware is better for gaming. It may be the same "power", but in general it is superior for the application of gaming because its power is easily harnessed and was designed with games in mind.

Bottom line, Sony's design doesn't make sense for its primary application (gaming). Devs can still get it to work, but it takes a whole lot more work and for some companies it simply may not profit to pay employees to do that work.

sub780lime · 11-08-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruined

The term superior hardware very much includes programming efficiency.

Thats pretty much what I as going to say. The system is more difficult to work with.

Astrakan · 11-08-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Honestly I wish I bought the PS3 version now, knowing it's the same...

Why? I thought you chose the 360 version due to the controls?

KM

Ruined · 11-08-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrakan

Why? I thought you chose the 360 version due to the controls?

KM

Not to mention that the userbase of XBOX Live decimates that of PSN. Much more people to play with.

MooglePorn · 11-09-2007, 12:17 AM

Yeah, I went with the 360 for a better FPS controller, but if I knew the PS3 version was exactly the same I might have gone for it for the vastly superior hardware.

I don't expect someone who doesn't own a PS3 to understand, but the fucking thing just works a lot better, from cooler, longer playtimes to menu speeds and quitting the game, all aspects... little things that add up mostly, but hardware reliability is important to me.

Plus I love the way PS3 games all have unique wallpapers and XMB music tracks... I know that's silly, but... aren't we all sometimes.

Anyway, as Ganth said perfectly, my point was to prove once and for all that when you get a poorly ported PS3 game the developer is to blame, no one else. Now, do they have reasons for porting it badly? Maybe... that doesn't mean consumers should bend over and take it though.

Ruined · 11-09-2007, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

Now, do they have reasons for porting it badly? Maybe... that doesn't mean consumers should bend over and take it though.

If the developer/publisher has reasons for porting it "badly," namely they won't make enough money if they spend it all optimizing for a friggin octopiler, why exactly should the developer/publisher "bend over and take it"?

The one that should bend over and take it is not the developer/publisher or the consumer, it is Sony. They are the one who designed and released and overcomplicated, overpriced gaming system that works better for folding proteins than it does playing games. If the design were not so problematic in terms of programming, neither the developer/publisher nor the consumer would have this issue. And that is why they are taking so much heat, rightfully so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooglePorn

from cooler, longer playtimes

Huh? How does how does heat output matter one bit when playing a game??

Quote:

to menu speeds

Again, huh?

Quote:

and quitting the game

Guide/Y/A.

Quote:

hardware reliability is important to me.

360 has the longest warranty (3 years) and the HDMI motherboard-based 360s have proved reliable.

Derb · 11-09-2007, 01:10 AM

Once game developers/programmers start to get a handle on actual programming instead of "oh, hit a roadblock, the PS3 sucks!" than I expect the PS3 to literally blow the crap out of the 360 in every area except consumers of course.

Ruined · 11-09-2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derb

Once game developers/programmers start to get a handle on actual programming instead of "oh, hit a roadblock, the PS3 sucks!" than I expect the PS3 to literally blow the crap out of the 360 in every area except consumers of course.

Not going to happen. The PS3 design is counter-intuitive and bottlenecked. The only area PS3's hardware is advantageous is that the SPEs could be used for physics-simulation, but this has already proved not-all-too-useful for games as seen on PC and the various Aegia PhysX-supported games - and its virtually cancelled out by PS3's many weaknesses.

With extra work, devs can bring PS3 up to the level of 360. In no way does PS3's hardware, even when fully taken advantage of, surpass 360s however.

PS3 has 1/3rd of the general processing power (literally has one core of which the 360 has 3 of), very restricted graphics bandwidth due to 128-bit memory bus and no eDram, and a GPU with less fillrate and an inferior shader architecture (SM3.0 on PS3 vs. XBOX 360 unified shaders). All that leaves is SPEs which can be used for nice physics effects, but those can be faked nicely too with software like Havok on 360 anyway. And this shows in reality with games look the same or in most cases better on 360. So what you are talking about is pretty much a pipe dream. I'd literally wager on it

I think this marks one of the few times in videogame history where a console has come out later than the direct competition and actually has had overall lesser hardware despite the delay. And, because of the high costs and slow adoption, it looks doubtful that devs will even make full use of the hardware anyway.

Take EA for example:
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=146228

Why should EA dedicate a significant amount of extra money working on the PS3 version when it makes them less than 1/10th the money of Xbox 360? Makes no sense. If PS3 takes off in the future, then it might make sense, but now it doesn't.

MooglePorn · 11-09-2007, 12:07 PM

The simple fact of the matter Ruined is that the PS3 hardware is not crappy or even overcomplicated, it's just much different from traditional PC design, same as the PS2. Developers who actually know how to use it, or are willing to learn, can pump out amazing graphics, better than 360 in some areas, maybe worse in others, I doubt there's any kind of official metacritic score to decide which one has a 1 point lead.

You look at games designed for the hardware and you see the graphical power of the PS3 and that it matches or, depending on taste, exceeds the 360's best looking titles, be it Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, Resistance, Heavenly Sword or Haze... You yourself admitted this.

Now with Call of Duty 4 we see developers, with the right development knowledge, can match 360 performance on the PS3 even with PC architecture. Why does Oblivion look better on PS3? Because they hired a team who know Playstation hardware to port it. It's all about KNOWLEDGE of the hardware, and all your PC-centric complaints, and quotes from PC-centric developers like Gabe Newell, show nothing to defute this.

Why you defend companies saying "this smaller audience is not worth developing time" I have no idea, shouldn't you stand up for the consumer, isn't that what your DRM rants are about? What if Warner said tomorrow "well BD sales are twice what HD DVD sales are, so we don't see the need to port special features to HD DVD, all those releases will be bare-bones"... I think you would be more than a little pissed off.

sub780lime · 11-09-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derb

Once game developers/programmers start to get a handle on actual programming instead of "oh, hit a roadblock, the PS3 sucks!" than I expect the PS3 to literally blow the crap out of the 360 in every area except consumers of course.

I have been hearing this for a while now and I really don't know if it's actually ever going to happen.

Iguana Man · 11-09-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sub780lime

I have been hearing this for a while now and I really don't know if it's actually ever going to happen.

It took a while for the PS2, I'd imagine it takes that or longer with the PS3. I wouldn't count it out, but given the way the PS3 has sold compared to the PS2, it may take longer.

MooglePorn · 11-09-2007, 11:33 PM

I have no idea who will win, but I think it's very possible the 360 and Wii will both stall around 20 million like they did last time, and I think the PS3 has a chance to break out of that like it did last time, once it gets cheap... cheap cheap...

All the $150 Xboxs in the world couldn't raise that puppy's numbers, but $150 PS3 would set the world on fire... but... you never know.

11-08-2007, 06:17 PM	#1 (permalink)
MooglePorn Actor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA	All the proof you need the PS3 is at least as powerful as the 360 Check out this Call of Duty 4 comparison: http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/ps3--...own-320209.php Call of Duty 4 looks exactly the same on both platforms, PS3 and 360. The game also runs at 60fps on both platforms, locked, with no screen tearing. Infinity Ward made statements before that they were putting the time into learning the PS3, and I guess this shows how that little bit of extra effort makes a product consumers deserve. No bullshit cop-outs, no blaming the hardware or Sony, just a developer doing what they should, making the game look as best it can on the hardware they release it on. Kudos to Infinity Ward, the bar has been set and it's time for 3rd parties to stop complaining and put in the damn effort. Infinity Ward is even a PC developer first and foremost, which makes their PS3 effort all the more impressive. Honestly I wish I bought the PS3 version now, knowing it's the same...

11-08-2007, 07:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
ganthc Actor Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: "Vyenna", VA	I think Moogle's point is that you have the "versus" thread trying to show that the 360 is better than the ps3. But apparently if any effort is put into the ps3 version, it is equal in quality to the 360 version. Which means that the 360 getting better ratings is not due to superior hardware, but to the ps3 not getting a decent version. __________________ HOOK'EM!!! UT LONGHORNS - National Champs 2005-2006!!! http://ganthc.youaremighty.com

11-08-2007, 07:32 PM	#4 (permalink)
umainebearman Nuked for Morbid Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Savannah,GA	1 out of 50. Not a good ratio for ps 3 owners. Activision being the one putting the money behind COD 4 I'm sure gave IW more man power to figure out what actually makes the ps 3 programming labyrinth tick. Activision knew this would be a big seller an knew they'd get a big return for putting some balls behind IW. Of course since cod 4 has a huge online component and the 360 is more online friendly I would assume the smart dual platform owners would go for the 360 version. They've been planning this game since cod 2 finished up so it's not like time was an issue. Just Sonys insane programming architecture. __________________ "We better win the F**king emmy for this this year or I swear to god..." Ronald D. Moore My DVD Collection

11-09-2007, 01:10 AM	#11 (permalink)
Derb Actor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: canada	Once game developers/programmers start to get a handle on actual programming instead of "oh, hit a roadblock, the PS3 sucks!" than I expect the PS3 to literally blow the crap out of the 360 in every area except consumers of course. __________________ DVD, HD DVD & BD Collection Finished supporting High-Def. Time for Blu to go mainstream.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-09-2007, 12:17 AM	#9 (permalink)
MooglePorn Actor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA	Yeah, I went with the 360 for a better FPS controller, but if I knew the PS3 version was exactly the same I might have gone for it for the vastly superior hardware. I don't expect someone who doesn't own a PS3 to understand, but the fucking thing just works a lot better, from cooler, longer playtimes to menu speeds and quitting the game, all aspects... little things that add up mostly, but hardware reliability is important to me. Plus I love the way PS3 games all have unique wallpapers and XMB music tracks... I know that's silly, but... aren't we all sometimes. Anyway, as Ganth said perfectly, my point was to prove once and for all that when you get a poorly ported PS3 game the developer is to blame, no one else. Now, do they have reasons for porting it badly? Maybe... that doesn't mean consumers should bend over and take it though.

11-09-2007, 12:07 PM	#13 (permalink)
MooglePorn Actor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA	The simple fact of the matter Ruined is that the PS3 hardware is not crappy or even overcomplicated, it's just much different from traditional PC design, same as the PS2. Developers who actually know how to use it, or are willing to learn, can pump out amazing graphics, better than 360 in some areas, maybe worse in others, I doubt there's any kind of official metacritic score to decide which one has a 1 point lead. You look at games designed for the hardware and you see the graphical power of the PS3 and that it matches or, depending on taste, exceeds the 360's best looking titles, be it Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, Resistance, Heavenly Sword or Haze... You yourself admitted this. Now with Call of Duty 4 we see developers, with the right development knowledge, can match 360 performance on the PS3 even with PC architecture. Why does Oblivion look better on PS3? Because they hired a team who know Playstation hardware to port it. It's all about KNOWLEDGE of the hardware, and all your PC-centric complaints, and quotes from PC-centric developers like Gabe Newell, show nothing to defute this. Why you defend companies saying "this smaller audience is not worth developing time" I have no idea, shouldn't you stand up for the consumer, isn't that what your DRM rants are about? What if Warner said tomorrow "well BD sales are twice what HD DVD sales are, so we don't see the need to port special features to HD DVD, all those releases will be bare-bones"... I think you would be more than a little pissed off.

11-09-2007, 11:33 PM	#16 (permalink)
MooglePorn Actor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA	I have no idea who will win, but I think it's very possible the 360 and Wii will both stall around 20 million like they did last time, and I think the PS3 has a chance to break out of that like it did last time, once it gets cheap... cheap cheap... All the $150 Xboxs in the world couldn't raise that puppy's numbers, but $150 PS3 would set the world on fire... but... you never know.