Uncharted 2 not possible on xbox 360

[matt_mr2t]

I think a helluva lot of people are gonna start looking at the ps3 now a lot more seriously.

Or possibly not, you see the PS3 has been a marketing joke and they will have damaged the consoles creditability. Even if they released some “got to have” game it still wouldn’t be enough to draw people in.

Don't EVER underestimate blind brand loyalty. If the PS3 was a useless, fragile, last gen machine with a grand total of 6 games, people would STILL pay £400 for it on launch day. Thats the way the world works and as much as I prefer the 360, Microsoft has a LONG way to before it can catch Sony on the console marketing IMO.

Seriously, I think the vast majority of people would use the word Playstation like the word Hoover. Individual brands that end up synonimous with an entire market place.

[Bender Unit]

I don't think there's much debate that the PS3 is far more poweful than the 360, but really it should be as it's much newer technology. The main issue with it is that it's hard to program for, and that's why it doesn't look a million miles better than the 360, which is the easier system to work on.

Bear in mind that it's also easier and quicker to make one version of the game and then port it over than it is to make a much prettier version and then have to reduce all the textures and CPU time to pop it on a lesser platform. Give it a couple of years and the PS3 will look far superior to the 360 as the programmers figure out how to use it.

Which is why I personally feel that the games for the PS3 will never be graphically any better than the 360 – and lets face it once they have built a game for the 360 its going to require further investment to make an significant difference to how the game is viewed on the PS3.

The minor graphical differences we see now on cross platform games are not due to the added capabilities of the PS3 over the 360 – just due to how it displays the same information. Just like 2 different brands of TV display a different picture. It’s not economically viable for developers to invest further time enhancing animations / graphics for the PS3 version after they have ported the game from 360 code to PS3 code.

As the majority of big titles are cross platform now, it will only be the PS3 only titles that will move ahead and leverage this graphical edge, and this means bigger production costs (hard to program) for smaller profits (PS3 only). Very few developers will undertake PS3 only work – the ones that have to date are heavily funded by Sony, which ultimately also limits the type of games available.

And as a result you will likely find that the PS3 will never realise its graphical advantage. Your also working on the basis that MS will stand still – I give it 3 years tops before a new MS console is on its way.

Don't EVER underestimate blind brand loyalty. If the PS3 was a useless, fragile, last gen machine with a grand total of 6 games, people would STILL pay £400 for it on launch day. Thats the way the world works and as much as I prefer the 360, Microsoft has a LONG way to before it can catch Sony on the console marketing IMO.

Sorry Matt, you’re a long way off – the PS3 is a marketing abortion, I do marketing and advertising as a living and everything Sony have done to date is half ar$ed and badly executed. MS has struck the right balance and is now stepping on Nintendo’s toes as well to draw in the family audience as well as the serious gamer..

Seriously, I think the vast majority of people would use the word Playstation like the word Hoover. Individual brands that end up synonimous with an entire market place.

Doesn’t make Hoover the market leader though does it?

[matt_mr2t]

I dont disagree that it's been a disaster. Then again, I dont that it is. I'm just saying that no matter how much of a disaster it is, people will still buy into the brand.

If the PS3 ceased production today naming sales failures etc etc as the reason, you can guarantee that there will still be an army of buyers for the PS4 should it come out.

It's always been the same. In the late 80's it was Nintendo Vs Sega. The difference is, they were kind of equally matched and also, different. Then the PS1 came along and killed Sega Consoles stone dead. I remember buying a Sega but it failed when directly rivalled by the PS1. Nintendo being Nintendo never really competed with the PS1 so the PS1 became the dominant console on the market, there just wasn't a rival for it. And that was what, 13 - 14 years ago?
Microsoft has a lot of work to do, in terms of impressing their brand on the market. To get people to associate Xbox with computer games instead of Playstation. I just believe that Sony struck while the iron was hot with the PS1, the branding of it etc and it's going to take something amazing for any one to equal that.

[eltonbird]

PS3's problem is it's CPU is immense, but very hard to get the "theoretical" maximum out of. Add to that, it's GPU is seriously under powered. The 360 can do a lot more pixels, which is why so many games run at higher resolution or have a better quality of Anti-aliasing than the PS3 versions.

PS3 also has to use the Cell to pre-process geometry, again because the GPU isn't good enough (programmers have to do things like Back face culling in software before sending the data to the GPU for rendering, which is a fair old waste of that super Cell CPU)

The understanding that the PS3 is "far more powerful" and is just a matter of "learning how to use it", isn't actually the case. It's a tricky beast, but even when used correctly, there's not a great deal between it and the 360.

I've been a games programmer since 1995 by the way, and although I've not worked directly on the PS3 or 360, I've got a large circle of colleagues who have. Most have had a a good whinge about the PS3 making their lives miserable at some point!

[matt_mr2t]

Funny you mention the resolution. Far more games on the 360 show on my TV as 1080i and 1080p than the PS3 which seems to be mostly 720p

[SamUK]

PS3's problem is it's CPU is immense, but very hard to get the "theoretical" maximum out of. Add to that, it's GPU is seriously under powered. The 360 can do a lot more pixels, which is why so many games run at higher resolution or have a better quality of Anti-aliasing than the PS3 versions.

PS3 also has to use the Cell to pre-process geometry, again because the GPU isn't good enough (programmers have to do things like Back face culling in software before sending the data to the GPU for rendering, which is a fair old waste of that super Cell CPU)

The understanding that the PS3 is "far more powerful" and is just a matter of "learning how to use it", isn't actually the case. It's a tricky beast, but even when used correctly, there's not a great deal between it and the 360.

I've been a games programmer since 1995 by the way, and although I've not worked directly on the PS3 or 360, I've got a large circle of colleagues who have. Most have had a a good whinge about the PS3 making their lives miserable at some point!

Glad somone in the know has said that!!

I have mentioned the bottleknecks in the system before only to be flamed.

Glad to have you on board lol.

[H3RB]

Funny you mention the resolution. Far more games on the 360 show on my TV as 1080i and 1080p than the PS3 which seems to be mostly 720p

it was a known fact at the release of the 360 that the 360 will display games at 1080p even if its not the native resolution of the game, its because on one of their press releases before launch they claimed every game would be 1080p lol retards

[eltonbird]

Another interesting game when comparing PS3 and 360, is Dirt 2.

It's another one that suffers a lot more frame rate drops, and screen tears, despite using half the effective resolution (due to anti-aliasing methods used) of the 360 version.

Now the Codemasters's engine is built on top of "PhyreEngine", which is a system Sony themselves promote! Makes you wonder what more Codemasters could do to match the 360 version? I'm sure a product like Dirt2, the common label of "lazy port" is not applicable.

The general expectation of the public is that the PS3 should be doing more, faster, better graphics etc. This is just down to good hype from Sony, and the fact that it came out later, and is more expensive.

[matt_mr2t]

The way I see it is that most indepentant game makers are going to make the same game for both consoles and not make it to each consoles max ability. So only exclusive Sony Games are going to show any extra ability it may have.

[H3RB]

The way I see it is that most indepentant game makers are going to make the same game for both consoles and not make it to each consoles max ability. So only exclusive Sony Games are going to show any extra ability it may have.

exactly, why would a company spend an extra 3months getting the ps3 version up too scratch when they can do a better job pn the 360 in a shorter time. its only because they know how to utilize the 360 but the same cant be said for the ps3. if first party devs eg naughty dog, can manage it then why cant everyone else

[eltonbird]

Yes, but another thing people forget about, is design! Many of the Sony exclusive teams have a history since PS2 (or longer), where they had a lot less performance to play with.

Experience with getting incredible looking things out of more limited hardware is invaluable. There's no way of knowing, or proving, if Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2, is using more polygons than a cross platform (or 360 exclusive) rival. But the fact is, the result on screen looks great. In Uncharted 2's case, possibly the best I've seen.

What would it look like if written for the 360? We'll never know! The only true way to benchmark the 2 systems is multi-platform games, which is bad for Sony, really.

[Andy Jones]

COD 4 was a good example (compared to the 360 ports at the time) as Infinity Ward wrote that from the ground up on the PS3 and admitted it was a challenge but learnt a lot of new things along the way regarding the machines architecture and side by side it was very hard to tell the difference.

Apart from Naughty Dog and Incognito (Criterion did a stonking job with Burnout Paradise too) is there any other dev (apart from Sony) actually trying to push the PS3's hardware at the moment?

Ghostbusters claimed to have more "stuff" on screen on the PS3 version but the publisher wanted both versions to look the same so it apparently got toned down and we never saw the claims with them not wanting to favour one machine.

And Crytek seem to be getting rather excited over the new Cryengine for the consoles claiming the PS3 out in front delivering more than they expected.

[H3RB]

What would it look like if written for the 360? We'll never know! The only true way to benchmark the 2 systems is multi-platform games, which is bad for Sony, really.

you cant really say that, as gow2 APPARENTLY pushed the 360 to its limits and uncharted looks better and by the sound (no loading, no installing) it will run better. but of course if gow3 comes out it they will tell us again how this time they sqeezed more out.
same with metal gear 4 they said the 360 couldnt handle it yet there is no way a 360 would bog down when playing it, its a nice looking game but not jaw dropping

[matt_mr2t]

Some one has to say this H3RB

You are one of VERY few people who don't think Gears looked gorgeous.

[H3RB]

no dont get me wrong, gears looed good, untill u got up close to a wall or rock etc and everything looked wet. its the same with bio shock fair enough its set under water but that doesnt mean every wall, rock or floor has to be shiney..

[matt_mr2t]

Bioshock still makes me a little bit happy thinking about it

My favourite game

[eltonbird]

I don't think you can really compare gears 2, and Uncharted2 in that way.

Gears uses unreal Engine 3. That engine performs better on 360, almost every multiplatform game using it either runs faster, higher res, or just plain nicer on the 360. Uncharted2 is a custom PS3 engine. I don't think they can ever claim UE3 pushes the 360 the the limit as a non-generic, custom engine could.

But again, it does come down to design efficiency. Uncharted 2, I would agree looks "better" than Gears 2. But it's hard to know if that because of clever design, or a technological advantage.

Is uncharted 2 pushing more triangles, pixels, doing more animation? Or is it just nicer art?
Do their artists have a better grasp of making the most out of each polygon, (regular clothed humans need a lot less polys than a body armoured COG, especially when not right up close) and maintaining consistent polygon density and scene complexity, so the engine actually doesn't need to push as many polys and pixels?

It doesn't matter to the end user. They just see that Uncharted 2 looks better than older stuff, but to claim it shows a significant technical edge of PS3 over 360 isn't a provable conclusion.

EDIT: Re COD4. It's also worth noting than leading development on PS3 is not far of saying using PS3 as the lowest common denominator. Designing around what they could get out of PS3 might mean the 2 versions end up mostly the same, but it can also mean the 360 version has been held back to make that so.

[Andy Jones]

Bioshock still makes me a little bit happy thinking about it

My favourite game

I've just restarted it on survivor and it makes me quite mad, It should be called die whenever you attack a big daddy.

[Andy Jones]

EDIT: Re COD4. It's also worth noting than leading development on PS3 is not far of saying using PS3 as the lowest common denominator. Designing around what they could get out of PS3 might mean the 2 versions end up mostly the same, but it can also mean the 360 version has been held back to make that so.

Like the PS3 version of Ghostbusters then and the PS3 version of Final Fantasy XIII.

[H3RB]

started resi 5 on ps3 yesterday doing co op with my bro who has played it and finished it 4 times on 360, and he couldnt stop commenting on how much better and smoother it looked and ran on the ps3. i cant comment on it my self as i never played it on 360 but maybe some of you guys can, all i know is it looks stunning and its much better then i thought lol