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

[Unholykrumpet]

Makes a lot of sense, there is a year's difference between the FAILBox 360 and PS3. The difference shows, a year in technology terms is a lot. Micro$uck jumped the gun with the FAILBox, didn't just suffer for rushing the PoS out with RRoD, (Hey FAILBox zombies, why did Micro$uck take 5 years to even come close to fixing this, and it still isn't entirely fixed?) now the technology is out dated a lot faster as well.

Alright folks, we're on our journey to the center of the internet. And if you look to your right, you can see the PS3 troll. No, Timmy, don't touch, he might make up a new clever word for the 360 or microsoft that will make microsoft enthusiasts cringe. ...You are why PS3 fans aren't taken seriously sir.

OT: PS3 probably has a slight lead in technology, but it's a slight lead. Exclusive developers are pretty much Microsoft's or Sony's mouthpiece to say shit they want to say without the risk of pissing people off at their respective companies. This E3 I would definitely say got me thinking about buying a ps3, but hey I'm the kind of person that would buy the kinect just for the ability to move through my netflix queue with my hands.

 

[obisean]

Wow, lots of fanboyism in these comments. It's pretty widely known that the PS3 can run things the 360 can't, that's part of the reason it costs more. Why are you acting surprised/hurt/indignant?

I like how you called everyone a fanboy and proceeded to promote your (obviously) favorite system. Pulled from the Urban dictionary, read definition 2:

fanboy

1. A person who is completely loyal to a game or company reguardless of if they suck or not.
2. A pathetic insult often used by fanboys themselves to try and put down people who don't like whatever it is they like.

Regardless of whether or not the PS3 hardware is better, the truth is neither console has done anything amazing that the other couldn't pull off, I don't care what you say. The way games are programmed on these consoles is radically different if you want them to be effective. Ports are ports, and ports usually suck. Most companies program for 360 and port to PS3 because 360 is easier to program for. Can the PS3 do more? Probably, but most companies don't want to take the time to learn, and why should they? They are in it to make money, and go with what is familiar and what works. This game could change that, but then again, it still has to put up with the fact that the memory and GPU are damn near identical. Let's see what they can do.

Truthfully, I don't own a PS3, but that's only because my HD "tv" is a computer monitor with VGA/DVI, and Sony doesn't support that, and MS does, so I don't have a PS3 (yet). My b-day is coming up and is a good excuse to squeeze some money out for a decent TV, so maybe a PS3 for x-mas .

 

[shadow skill]

Where is the Xbox's God of War 3, or Killzone 2 with visuals that look as good as they do online with the number of players supported? Where is their MGS4, or Infamous. The fact that these games, especially Killzone 2 and Infamous look as good as they do with as much potentially going on, on screen as they have is the proof. Of course the developer wasn't just talking about visuals despite what some of you think. The power of a given system overall is what is going to determine what you can get out of the machine visually while everything else not directly related to the visuals is going on.

 

[tehbeard]

Makes a lot of sense, there is a year's difference between the FAILBox 360 and PS3. The difference shows, a year in technology terms is a lot. Micro$uck jumped the gun with the FAILBox, didn't just suffer for rushing the PoS out with RRoD, (Hey FAILBox zombies, why did Micro$uck take 5 years to even come close to fixing this, and it still isn't entirely fixed?) now the technology is out dated a lot faster as well.

Flamebait if ever there was any.

OT:
PS3, better graphics, arguably more powerful CPU
360, easier development (similar to PC architecture), much better online services.

 

[felixader]

GOD! I swear one day i gonna found a hitSquad that will go after every developer or company that spills such s bullshit, causing squareheaded fanboys of every brand to come out and spill even more bullshit.

I remember when effective programming was the word, but now it's "Oh we have such and such space an the machine/datacarrier just let it us pull on there twice."

All this shit depends on is how it is programmed and that you wont get a Crysis out of N64 is clear.

And one thing (wich is just against the PC fanboys not PC gamers) what is the use of the phrase "i can have this on PCs better" when half of the same poeple have to add (on medium settings) and shit like this.

I have consoles, when games come out for one of it i read a review. Is said review claiming that the game is great (either way, gameplay or/and graphics/physics) then Yay, i am save.
Not so on PC, and that is why i like consoles, it is a bit more relaxed especially considering the couch-bit.

BUT on the other side there is NO console where i can do awesome creative stuff like i can do with a graphictablet and some software on a decend or even mediocre PC.

 

[VanityGirl]

He's full of shit with his statements, but I'll still play inFamous2.

He's like the Peter Moleneux of Sony.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

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."

Remember the Air Force buying a shitton of PS3s for processing power?, they didn't buy 360's for processing power.
I'd rethink that statement, lol.

PS3 has more raw processing power, which DOES NOT equal superior graphics. It means their physics engines can handle more details and points of information. Meanwhile, the Xbox 360 has a better RAM structure, which tends to mean lower load times and slightly better graphical performance, hence why the 360 lacks a few meaningless graphical niggles on crossplatform games like tearing, banding, or slightly blurred resolution.

They're the same damn machine otherwise.

By the letter of law their statement is probably true - the PS3 CAN handle more events happening all at once on screen. That is what the extra processing power means. More detail, more movement. It does not improve graphical fidelity, texture, or resolution.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Processing power =/= just graphics. I mean they don't use supercomputers to send satellites to Mars so they can have fancy UIs in mission control.

 

[Bat Vader]

I played the first Infamous and it was not all that great. Hopefully, the second will be better in the story aspect and game play aspect because graphics do not mean all that much. The game play in the first one was alright but there was not many different choices to make in the story.

Why were there only good and bad choices? Why not neutral choices? I understand they have a story they want to tell if they are going to let us make decisions in the game than they need to make it so that we can forge our own path in the game and not the linear one they make us tread.

 

[shadow skill]

People really need to work on their reading comprehension.

 

[HT_Black]

I lol'd.

Seriously, the only thing more prevalant in this industry than corruption are the developers who enjoy trolling the fanbases of other platforms. It's kind of humorous in a way, I think.

While there's no denying that the PS3 has a technical edge on the Wii and 360, it can't hold a candle to even a bottom-end current gaming PC; you'd think the developers would stop propping up the graphical capabilities of the PS3 when the competition can run RDR without an install time.

 

[shadow skill]

I lol'd.

Seriously, the only thing more prevalant in this industry than corruption are the developers who enjoy trolling the fanbases of other platforms. It's kind of humorous in a way, I think.

While there's no denying that the PS3 has a technical edge on the Wii and 360, it can't hold a candle to even a bottom-end current gaming PC; you'd think the developers would stop propping up the graphical capabilities of the PS3 when the competition can run RDR without an install time.

That isn't what he was doing. Read the damn article.


@rest of thread:

You know I think it is pathetic that so many of the comments here are along the lines of "He's full of shit graphics don't matter!" when the man is talking about raw power. I think it says alot about the graphics don't matter crowd that they are so fixated on visuals that they can't even figure out that the system has to be a beast in order to get the kinds of visuals in some of these games given how large the world is and/or how many things are on screen at any given time.

 

[soapyshooter]

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."

Remember the Air Force buying a shitton of PS3s for processing power?, they didn't buy 360's for processing power.
I'd rethink that statement, lol.

And dont forget Lost Planet 2 had content cut from the 360 because DVDs dont have the memory power. They are similar but there are some differences, like it or not.

 

[UberNoodle]

Says a Ps3 developer. Hmm , go figure. And it is always the Ps3 developers who take time out of their busy schedules in order to make these 'community announcements'. What is it, contractual obligation? More often that not, developers bignoting the hardware happens with Sony products. I would not be surprised if there is a contractual obligation to do so.

As for what the guy says - proving something can be done on ps3 doesn't automatically prove it CAN'T be done on the 360. Did they spend as much energy getting it to work on the 360 as they did getting it to work on the Ps3? Do they even have a 360 to verify this statement with? No? Didn't think so.

 

[scotth266]

Being someone who owns a copy of Infamous, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that one. The game is barely more graphics-intensive / computationally complex than Prototype, a multi-platform game released at the same time.

Now if the developers of Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 said that, I might be able to give them the benefit of the doubt. But Infamous? Yeah, no.

Just more corporate weenie-waggling.

 

[sheah1]

I'm a massive PS fanboy but.... infamous wasn't that good, I've definitely played much better games on the xbox, much more complex games as well. Plus infamous had pretty bad graphics and the sequel looks to follow.

 

[Uber Waddles]

Awwww, thats nice, the PS3 is more complex. Because complex = better, right?

Until the PS3 can manage to come out with a game that can impress me, its all talk. InFamous was alright, but I perfered Prototype; neither of which were the ground-breaking-globe-burning games they were expected to be.

Plus, I perfer games that run off of DVD. BluRay may hold more space, and make a prettier picture, but BluRay lacks one important thing: speed. The technology to make it fast just doesnt exist. So, while it holds more data, its slow. Hence why you need to download games to your PS3's hard-drive. And hence why BluRay movies are annoying as fuck (which is legendarily annoying when Im around). I still to this day perfer popping a DVD into a DVD player and watching the movie immedietly then waiting 5 minutes for my video to load before I have to sift through the movie previews [While Im aware of the excuse that my BluRay player sucks, I would like to point out I still have the original DVD player I had back from, like, 2001, that works just as fast as the one hooked up in my theathre room]. Nit-pick? Yes. But as far as I can see, thats what everyone else in here is doing, they're just fancier with it.

Graphically, the difference doesnt warrant the annoyance (hence why if a game comes out for both consoles, I frequently tend to get the 360 version). As for complex game mechanics? I dont really care; I have not seen anything that has blown me out of the water yet and made me think "This machine is far superior". One thing that makes it superior is the fact that my PS3 has only broken twice, while my 360 is at three times. But would I be a cynic if I didnt point out that my PS2 AND N64 both still work, with no repairs needed?

 

[shadow skill]

Being someone who owns a copy of Infamous, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that one. The game is barely more graphics-intensive / computationally complex than Prototype, a multi-platform game released at the same time.

Now if the developers of Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 said that, I might be able to give them the benefit of the doubt. But Infamous? Yeah, no.

Just more corporate weenie-waggling.

Have you seen the code? Although I must say that the effects in Infamous are noticeably better than prototype I think that has more to do with the basis of Cole's powers.

 

[Fidelias]

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."

PS3 has tons more power, deal with it.. it's fact http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080519180707AANumkW all the numbers favour sony

Like others have said, it is true that the PS3 has better processing power than the 360, but it's such a minuscule amount that it's not noticable. Trust me, I have both consoles, and Mass Effect looks just as pretty as Killzone 2, if not more so.

Are you kidding me? Yahoo Answers? And you think this is correct? That could be ANYONE who posted that answer! Give me specs emailed to you directly by Sony and Microsoft and then I might believe you.