inFamous Developer: You Can't Do That on a 360

[Timbydude]

I don't really get why everybody's giving this guy such a hard time. The PS3 is, objectively, a more powerful system. That's just a fact. Why do you think people were complaining when they heard FFXIII wasn't going to be PS3-exclusive? It wasn't because they want it all for themselves; it was because they were worried that the game's graphics would be worsened so that it could run on Xbox as well.

I still have an Xbox 360 because their multiplayer service is much better due to the fact that everyone has a headset, whereas PS3 has little to no means of communication between players. I have more games for my 360, and I spend more time on my 360. But that doesn't mean my 360 is more powerful.

His statement also doesn't just mean "lol our graphics r too gud"; he's just saying that you can have more going on in the game without the system suffering. That's just the truth. Arguing the opposite is like pretending that 1 + 1 is 3.

Believe it or not, I think the 360 has a better frame rate, or at least a more consistant one. I looked at side by side screens of Tomb Raider Underworld, and the 360 one did look a bit more refined.

Things like this occur because most multiplatform games are developed for 360 and then ported to PS3 (and PC, sometimes) before launch. It makes sense; the 360 is the most popular with the hardcore crowd, so it's best to refine the experience for them. But that process is the reason that comparisons between how the 360 and PS3 run a certain game are largely invalid.

 

[Rayansaki]

Actually it's not just because of the graphics. Sure, Uncharted 2 had probably the best graphics of any console game, but the adapting environments and moving scenery were what made it unique and extremely heavy on the PS3.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99074-Naughty-Dog-Says-Train-Level-Almost-Broke-Uncharted-2

More processing power means higher framerate in games with those elements if they are programmed correctly.

Infamous already had a lot of motion elements through the map. I'm hyped for Infamous 2.

There is a reason why while most multiplatform games play similar on both consoles or even better on the x360, the PS3 exclusives are miles ahead of the competition.

 

[Grey_Focks]

And, by the way, they bought PS3's for Linux.

Glad to see THAT worked out well for them.

OT: Meh. The technical differences between the two consoles aren't nearly as big as most devs want you to believe.

*Gasp* A game maker who makes game primarily for system X wants you to believe that system X can do things better than system Y?!? Madness! And the oldest marketing trick in the book, but w/e.

 

[Treblaine]

If Crysis 2 and Rage can settle for "good enough", why can't Infamous 2?

Because they don't have to bother developing for two systems, this studio is being paid by Sony to make the best possible game for their system they need to maximise their one system's potential.
With 2 systems every asset one must think not whether it will work on one system, but BOTH systems, so you can't be too ambitious.

In reality, what are the real weaknesses and strengths of the 360 versus the PS3 that would require a complete recoding? Maybe I'm just ignorant of the details but nothing suggests this is true. What about cross-platform games?

It's as strange mantra that co-development must have as similar products as possible and it seems to be for a very important reason: if Console-A owner thinks the Console-B version is significantly better they may hold off on buying since they think they are getting ripped off, or vica versa. The publishers want both PS3 and Xbox 360 owners to have no hesitation at all on buying the game for their system - to make money you know - so there is no point making one version look better. They want to honestly say "both versions are identical BUY OUR GAME NOW!" Also to eeak out the last better performance from PS3 (as these Sucker Punch developers have stated) takes a considerable amount of extra effort.

The real explanation is that PS3-exclusive devs just say this to give a guise of reason; likewise with any 360-exclusive dev that does the same. This above post seems like a Sony fanboy through and through so I can't argue with it as an impartial observer. In reality, neither the 360, nor the PS3 has really gotten anywhere near to what the PC can do so that statement that "the machine [360] has failed to really deliver the amazing graphics through even extended periods of exclusive development in the same way PS3 has" seems like a fanboy statement.

Consider that I play mostly on the 360. It has glaring flaws, just like every other console.

It may sound like a fanboy statement but the definition of fanboy is unreasoned and spurious assertions, these are THE DEVELOPERS! They KNOW what they are talking about.

It is NOT FANBOYISH to merely have an opinion that one system is better than another, especially in the Expert opinion of a Sucker Punch developer with a reputation to protect. Please, for the love of almighty mod, please could people STOP using the term "fanboy" inappropriately for people who merely disagree with them. Like many terms used on the internet it has been abused and will very soon become meaningless. Like "noob", used as an insult against inexperienced players, then pathetic losers started calling skilled players who killed them all the time the "noob". Meaningless now, only insulting.

I'm sorry, but you CANNOT reasonably accuse me of fanboyism just because I point out Xbox 360 can't match Killzone 2 and uncharted 2's graphical fidelity.

What? Do you want me to LIE? Do you want me to censor my speech so I don't "offend" anyone. Anyone who takes offence or feels angered by hearing that Uncharted 2 has the best console graphics needs a serious reality check and if they can't accept that then I don't want to hear about it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I didn't realize processing power made games more fun. I also didn't realize that the XBox 360 didn't have enough processing power to have fun in the first place. Looks like all the fun I had on it was a lie!

You've made a real breakthrough; acceptence is the most important step in the healing process.

OT: As long as it plays good and looks good, I don't really care....Still, my inner Playstation-fanboy is snickering somewhat.

...Shhh, quiet you!

 

[Jumplion]

PS3: Graphics over quality.

Seriously, shut up and make the game. This time, try to make it a bit less bland.

Please, point me anywhere in his interview that he stated that the game can't be possible because of graphics.

As far as I know, processors do more than just graphics.

 

[ZehGeek]

Because graphics equal substance, right?

Come on devs, stop thinking graphics mean shit, people practically blew drug dealers to get Modern Warfare 2 and it looked like a game from 2005.
Not that I'm saying I liked MW2 personally, but it certainly didn't sell on graphics.

Umm, graphics are nice, but with the PS3, you can get both graphics, and deep gameplay. The processing power and the size of the Blu Ray discs are just made for it. High Def disc is 15 gigs I think max, compared to the Blu Ray being 25 gigs+. Even though there's a complex archetect, there's alot more payoff, atleast from the things I've seen and how I feel n stuff.

I officially call bullshit.

I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty damn sure that the Xbox and the PS3 can both handle the exact same things.

Next time, I hope they just say, "Yeah, screw Xbox, we like PS3 more."

Umm, go look up the specs for both the 360 and PS3? Nuff said.

PS3: Graphics over quality.

Seriously, shut up and make the game. This time, try to make it a bit less bland.

Please, point me anywhere in his interview that he stated that the game can't be possible because of graphics.

As far as I know, processors do more than just graphics.

The processors run everything in the game. From the cutscenes, to the boss battles, to the AIs, etc etc.

 

[Jumplion]

PS3: Graphics over quality.

Seriously, shut up and make the game. This time, try to make it a bit less bland.

Please, point me anywhere in his interview that he stated that the game can't be possible because of graphics.

As far as I know, processors do more than just graphics.

The processors run everything in the game. From the cutscenes, to the boss battles, to the AIs, etc etc.

So why are people knee-jerking to this going "OMG, GRAPHICS DUN EQUAL GUD GAME!#$!#"?

*sigh*, I hate knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Treblaine]

2) The PC version will not be superior. Why? Because your PC probably can't handle it. Have the best PC ever? Well guess what, it probably wasn't programmed with your configuration in mind and will run like shit until the 1.01 patch with beta graphic drivers, and some config file tweaking.

Baaauuu? Huh? these are the onomatopoeic sounds I make on reading that and makes me question if you really know anything much about PC gaming at all.

It is ALL made to the same standards and configuration... it's just a matter of some parts running faster or with higher memory. There is always room for optimisation but it is never a case that the best PC can't handle it.

The problem with Crysis 1 back in 2007 was the developers were "taking the piss" with the Maximum graphics setting putting in detail they knew no contemporary system could handle at reasonable framerate. Patches brought marginal improvements for unusual setups like SLI, Crossfire and newer graphics cards, but really the only solution was to wait for Nvidia and ATI to make powerful enough graphics cards.

Of course the sensible thing to do back then was to just lower graphics to Medium-to-High which was still better graphics than any other contemporary games... but the inner caveman, we just HAVE to put it at the highest settings, then find some other way to improve framerate.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Well that's such a surprise to hear coming from a developer that has worked exclusively with Sony for the past decade.

I see you ninja'd me to this comment. I was thinking the same thing when I tried to ponder all the experience they've had on the 360...

 

[AgentNein]

If I can fault this dude for anything, it's not keeping in mind how juvenile and defensive console fanboys can actually get. He didn't say much of anything inflammatory, yet people feel the need to take it as a personal attack.

I enjoyed InFamous, the buggy mess that it was, it was backed by some solid gameplay. If this next game can honestly live up to the Uncharted 2 comparison? That will make me excited. Say what you will, I honestly haven't seen the equivalent of Uncharted 2 on the 360. Rage does look pretty snazzy though!

 

[GeneticallyModifiedDucks]

Did it occur to any of the people on this thread that they maybe, just maybe aren't talking about graphics. Infamous is an open-world game. Which means there's a lot data. And wouldn't that work better on the massive storage capacity of the PS3? Just a thought.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

This is just money talking. They can either spend more money trying to develop for two teams or they can spend less trying to develop for one.

Anyone that develops these programs are going to first ask themselves, if the expenses of trying to develop for two groups will be less than what they get in profit or will they smack into a loss.

This developer feels their profits will suffer if they try to develop for two rather than for one. Especially when the two groups work in different ways; to effectively work with one group to it's best potential is not the same for the other.

 

[Jumplion]

Did it occur to any of the people on this thread that they maybe, just maybe aren't talking about graphics. Infamous is an open-world game. Which means there's a lot data. And wouldn't that work better on the massive storage capacity of the PS3? Just a thought.

Quiet you! Whenever anyone talks about a game "only possible on PS3" they only mean graphically wise, nothing else! Disc size, different processors, different specializations of hardware, they mean nothing because the PS3 is only for good graphics and nothing else!

 

[Something Amyss]

Complexity my glorious and bountiful buttocks.

 

[Xersues]

2) The PC version will not be superior. Why? Because your PC probably can't handle it. Have the best PC ever? Well guess what, it probably wasn't programmed with your configuration in mind and will run like shit until the 1.01 patch with beta graphic drivers, and some config file tweaking.

Baaauuu? Huh? these are the onomatopoeic sounds I make on reading that and makes me question if you really know anything much about PC gaming at all.

It is ALL made to the same standards and configuration... it's just a matter of some parts running faster or with higher memory. There is always room for optimisation but it is never a case that the best PC can't handle it.

The problem with Crysis 1 back in 2007 was the developers were "taking the piss" with the Maximum graphics setting putting in detail they knew no contemporary system could handle at reasonable framerate. Patches brought marginal improvements for unusual setups like SLI, Crossfire and newer graphics cards, but really the only solution was to wait for Nvidia and ATI to make powerful enough graphics cards.

Of course the sensible thing to do back then was to just lower graphics to Medium-to-High which was still better graphics than any other contemporary games... but the inner caveman, we just HAVE to put it at the highest settings, then find some other way to improve framerate.

It's all the same standard? Afraid not. It if were, there wouldn't be patches made for just ATI cards, AMD machines, different USB settings (see devices) and whatever else you plug into our loveboxes. Its rather obvious you don't understand that no matter what "standard" things are running, they are not created equal or play nice with different configurations on other closed source systems. Again, HARDWARE is only PART of the issue with gaming. The software APIs must not be buggy. Calling Nvidias "draw" method SHOULD do more or less the same thing as ATIs correct? Wrong. I point you here: http://www.insomniacgames.com/assets/extras/ahairtearingoutbugquiz%282%29.pdf

This is an example using the PS3. You think other hardware doesn't have the same issue?

I program for a living, on different systems, OSes, and different hardware configurations. I can say without a doubt, that just because it "should" doesn't mean it "will". And yes. I know a lot about PC gaming, thanks for the concern however.

 

[Iron Lightning]

For someone with such a complex job, this guy speaking a lot of shit. It's almost as if he wants to make people fight. Moron.

Check out this thread, I think he succeeded.

 

[GeneticallyModifiedDucks]

Did it occur to any of the people on this thread that they maybe, just maybe aren't talking about graphics. Infamous is an open-world game. Which means there's a lot data. And wouldn't that work better on the massive storage capacity of the PS3? Just a thought.

Quiet you! Whenever anyone talks about a game "only possible on PS3" they only mean graphically wise, nothing else! Disc size, different processors, different specializations of hardware, they mean nothing because the PS3 is only for good graphics and nothing else!

OK, I'll go back in my cave and sulk...