inFamous Developer: You Can't Do That on a 360
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
PS3 fans: Wooo... WE HAS DA BESTEST CONSOLE evar!
360 fans: NUHUH! GRAPHICS DON'T MEAN SHIT. XBOX IS STILL BETTER ANYWAY!
PC fans: I have a pc.
Everyone else:
That about sums up this thread.
360 fans: NUHUH! GRAPHICS DON'T MEAN SHIT. XBOX IS STILL BETTER ANYWAY!
PC fans: I have a pc.
Everyone else:
That about sums up this thread.
I like the concept of the Cell architecture, but it is very difficult to code for. Designing optimized code to run in two cores instead of one takes a lot of planning to get perfect, but the Cell processor in the PS3 has nine cores, which makes for very ugly code, very quickly, if you were to optimize it to run in all nine. But personally, I think InFamous could have run fine on a 360, if they were to just trim off some bloat, per se. On the other hand, any bloat they could trim off would be added back on and tripled because of the way Microsoft wrote the Xbox 360 development packages, so maybe it wouldn't work after all. But I digress.
This might actually explain a lot. inFamous was obviously intended to be a super-villain sandbox game. Then something happened and it stitched on a stupid "moral choice" system. I had kind of assumed it was someone in marketing saying that you couldn't release a game like that (or at least saying something, I have absolutely no idea what). Now it seems possible that the epilogue that the first draft of development had glued on might have been the developers piddling about with the hardware.
It doesn't overall change anything, though. The game still got a stupid feature added on at some point in its development. This only determines whether the developers were stupid for one reason or just as stupid for a different reason.
It doesn't overall change anything, though. The game still got a stupid feature added on at some point in its development. This only determines whether the developers were stupid for one reason or just as stupid for a different reason.
um i got an xbox because it was cheap and im not buying a ps3 for an exclusive and a developer making excuses for his own inabilities, just proves how stupid he is.
Umm... No.Burwood123 said:
The PS3 has the Cell, that's pretty much all it has going for it. The PS3's GPU is based off of 7-8 year old technology.
Fact: The 360 GPU was one of the first, if not the first GPUs to have a unified shader architecture, which allows for more flexibility when it comes to shaders and vertices.
I mean, both consoles are old, and both are showing their age, so in the end who cares.
On the topic of Rage, it's a game that has ridiculous texture detail. An open world with such detail is hard as hell to attain. The two comparable games, Fallout 3, and Red Dead Redemption don't even compare. Red Dead has a lot less little details such as items and doodads, Fallout 3 has a ton of doodads and details like books and the like...
Rage seems to be really detailed all around. We'll see what it can do when it comes for PC
.inFamous was a game I rented around the same time as Prototype. Both on the PS3.
I ended up buying Prototype on the 360. I enjoy it very much.
I've already played Grand Theft Auto's and Bioshock a lot so inFamous didn't offer me much I hadn't already experienced
I ended up buying Prototype on the 360. I enjoy it very much.
I've already played Grand Theft Auto's and Bioshock a lot so inFamous didn't offer me much I hadn't already experienced
Neither of those ancient toaster boxes has the power of a PC, so why in the name of hell am I still being forced to buy shitty console to pc ports of games that require me to use a software architecture that's almost 10 years old (directX 9), with visuals so dated I feel like I'm stuck in a timeloop and gameplay that's so linear and short I'm left feeling like I've paid over 100 bucks for a demo?Andy Chalk said:
What exactly is it going to take to get developers to focus on the PC as the mainstay for development again? We push the boundaries of technology every day, yet we get nothing but games stuck in 2004 for our efforts. Even so-called "optimised for pc" games like Fallout 3 (which couldn't handle more than two cpus, 3gig of ram and 1 video card and had in-game memory leaks and bugs that were amusingly enough, the exact same problems that Oblivion suffered on the pc), to Dragon Age Origins (a next generation engine that couldn't do dynamic lights or shadows, something that's been around since directx7) which suffered from abominable visuals unless you turned the bells and whistles off and still has massive memory leaks in major game areas that will crash your computer if you're not careful), to new release games like Aliens Vs Predator 2010 (which looks no different between the xbox 360 version and the allegedly directx11 upgrades on the pc).
I'm honestly sick of it. I love my pc, and wouldn't buy a console if they offered me free booze (I have no interest in old technology), but it's beyond ridiculous that we pc gamers have to suffer through awful console port after port (some of which don't even bother to remove the console control buttons from config menus and in-game tutorials).
Viva La PC, the only TRUE next-generation machine, and the one true heir to gaming. Yes, I am biased against consoles (I've owned them all, and have abandoned them), and I do honestly believe that it is exclusively their fault that gaming hasn't advanced since 2004 (show me a game other than Crysis which is truly optimised for and uses the power and capabilities of a PC, and I'll show you a console game with an extra layer of bloom added). So what? The fact that EVERY game I purchase demands that I install the directX 9 software (despite PCs currently being on directX 11, with cpus, video cards, ram, well hell, basically every component so far beyond the pitiful specs of a console) proves my point that gaming is stuck in the past and that consoles are to blame for it.
[edited for spelling and to remove a bit of redundancy]
Who cares? Honestly, graphics have never been a selling point to me when it comes to buying games. Icing on the cake if everything else is good, but if the biggest selling point is the graphics, it's not going to get my attention. This is the problem with PC games too. Why are we pressing forward on constant graphical improvement when gameplay and writing for games is in need of some improvements first?
No, not 'nuff said, I have looked at them and the specs for PS3 are fractionally larger. Anything that the PS3 can handle, an Xbox can easily handle too.ZehGeek said:
If you bother to look through any of the previous posts I've been quoted on, you'll see that about 5 people have brought up this same argument, and you'll see that one of them even posted a system specs link.
They're all the same numbers.
Frankly, I'm sick of developers feeding consumers bullshit.
SilverUchiha said:
How many times do I have to say this? He. Is. Not. Talking. About. Graphics. He never once mentioned anything about graphics. Just because he says "processors" doesn't automatically mean "graphics", processors handle much more than just graphics, damnit!Nouw said:
Wrong on two counts.Vaccine said:
1. The Air Force considered buying PS3s because the PS3 is cheaper than a typical server, thanks to mass production of consumer electronics.
2. The Air Force never bought more than a few hundred PS3s, thanks to Sony's decision to drop support for Linux.
Exactly.Vaccine said:
I've read multile posts from people trying to prove Suckerpunch wrong and also go as far as say that the 360 can do anything that ps3 can do. If so I have one question. Where are thses games that look as good as Uncharted, God of War 3, Killzone 2? The new Xbox releases that were shown at e3 still have that close to ps3 graphic standard but with all this talk of equality I havre seen nothing. Please don't be stupid and compare Rage to Uncharted or Killzone etc... it is the best looking Xbox game but the same can't be said for the ps3. Does Microsoft need to have to get devs that produce ps3 games to make these types of games. As for people who don't care about graphics but by games for gameplay, the ps3 wins out there too. Sony has a variety of games to offer. Games that are also exclusive like...
Nija Gaiden Sigma
God Of War Collection
God of War 3
Metal Gear Solid 4
Little Big Planet
Resistance Series
Rainbow Six vegas
Infamous
Gran Turismo
Killzone 2
These are the games that I own, I have an Xbox also and have seen no games that are that long/huge/good looking fun to buy. I don't see why people hold Xbox to an equal value to ps3. I'm cotemplating selling my 360 to get the Uncharted Series and have money left over to try out the Ps Move. I'm waiting to see if Gears 3 and Halo rweach are worth buying though.
Nija Gaiden Sigma
God Of War Collection
God of War 3
Metal Gear Solid 4
Little Big Planet
Resistance Series
Rainbow Six vegas
Infamous
Gran Turismo
Killzone 2
These are the games that I own, I have an Xbox also and have seen no games that are that long/huge/good looking fun to buy. I don't see why people hold Xbox to an equal value to ps3. I'm cotemplating selling my 360 to get the Uncharted Series and have money left over to try out the Ps Move. I'm waiting to see if Gears 3 and Halo rweach are worth buying though.
Nowhere in that article was the word graphic(s) used. Processing power =/= better graphics. It means smoother gameplay and the better chance that things won't slow down when there's a ton going on at once. That said, it allows you to have more going on at once without fear of the thing crapping out.
Where this graphics talk came from, I don't know. I'm starting to wonder if most of you read the article at all.
OT: Saying that the 360 "Can't handle" their game is kinda dumb, considering they didn't try. No one has unlocked the true potential of either console yet. So in terms of what they can't handle, we have no idea yet. Can't handle now? Sure. Will never be able to? We'll see.
I'd be willing to bet that if inFamous were developed for 360 as well, they would have had similar problems with the PS3. They likely would have found out something new for 360 processing as well. We'll never know.
Where this graphics talk came from, I don't know. I'm starting to wonder if most of you read the article at all.
OT: Saying that the 360 "Can't handle" their game is kinda dumb, considering they didn't try. No one has unlocked the true potential of either console yet. So in terms of what they can't handle, we have no idea yet. Can't handle now? Sure. Will never be able to? We'll see.
I'd be willing to bet that if inFamous were developed for 360 as well, they would have had similar problems with the PS3. They likely would have found out something new for 360 processing as well. We'll never know.
