inFamous Developer: You Can't Do That on a 360
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
If Crysis 2 and Rage can settle for "good enough", why can't Infamous 2? 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? 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.Treblaine said:
Consider that I play mostly on the 360. It has glaring flaws, just like every other console.
Ah, the Console Wars still hold much sway, it seems.
I'm an Xbox owner, and a proud one at that, but I think that it's ludicrous to discount the PS3. It is a highly impressive machine, of that I have no doubt.
However, I hate its controllers with a passion that should only be poured into a lifelong hobby or a marriage.
That's right. I love hating the shit out of them.
I got over my hatred of them for my playthrough of Heavy Rain, though, and I have enjoyed MW2 on it as well... although probably not as much as I would have enjoyed it on my Xbox... I didn't really feel like shelling out a lot of money for the game, though. Campaign was way too short, and multiplayer really doesn't do it for me these days.
That said, the ps3 is more powerful in terms of technical sophistication and in processing ability than the Xbox.
Does the Xbox need to be as powerful? Not really. I'm happy with how it is, to be frank.
Oh.. to be Frank..
I'm an Xbox owner, and a proud one at that, but I think that it's ludicrous to discount the PS3. It is a highly impressive machine, of that I have no doubt.
However, I hate its controllers with a passion that should only be poured into a lifelong hobby or a marriage.
That's right. I love hating the shit out of them.
I got over my hatred of them for my playthrough of Heavy Rain, though, and I have enjoyed MW2 on it as well... although probably not as much as I would have enjoyed it on my Xbox... I didn't really feel like shelling out a lot of money for the game, though. Campaign was way too short, and multiplayer really doesn't do it for me these days.
That said, the ps3 is more powerful in terms of technical sophistication and in processing ability than the Xbox.
Does the Xbox need to be as powerful? Not really. I'm happy with how it is, to be frank.
Oh.. to be Frank..
There are two things wrong with the article:Treblaine said:
1. The article was written before the PS3 came out.
2. Even the article itself says maximum theoretical numbers.
That is why an updated article would be better.
Eh, we're not really talking about PCs anyway, so if PC is better at physics and logic then good for them (maybe I'll find out soon when my new PC comes inTreblaine said:OK. PC is better at physics and logic toobut only if you consider such features worth a dedicated GPU to process it (yes, paradoxically the graphics cards in PC can sometimes handle the physics). But anyway, quad core CPUs for PC, gigabytes of RAM... they're right crack.
)Some parts have been changed internally in both 360 and PS3, stating that more efficient uses of the parts were possible with the new pieces of hardware (I remember when the PS3 got a smaller, more efficient chip of some sort, that also allowed it to lower in price, though god help me if I can find the article(s))
Why would you ever want to settle for "Eh, good 'nuff"? That stuff gets you a "B-" in school. So all games should just settle for "good 'nuff" and just evenly spread the "love" and not try to settle for anything better?Omnific One said:
You simply cannot compare the two consoles based on multi-platform games. If a developer sets out to make a multi-platform game you will always end up with a game which runs better on one system than on the other (normally they run better on the 360 since the cell broadband engine doesn't handle ports very well). If you really want to find out which system is better you'd need to develop a series of identical benchmark tests independently on each system. However, that is a task which would be very expensive since I can't even imagine the number of different tests which would be required.
The PS3 has an incredible piece of hardware inside, the cell broadband engine. Sadly, I don't think any piece of software will fully utilize this before the next generation is released. It's infamous [lol] for being unimaginably hard to develop games on. What is does well is floating point operations, for example: it can run a brute force gravity sim with over 12,000 bodies very, very quickly and can do real time ray tracing phenomenally fast. It's just not made to develop games on, it's a supercomputer essentially. The xbox is a specialized machine made entirely for gaming, hence it will almost always run ports better. blah blah blah etc.
All that aside, based completely on what's under the hood, the PS3 will do maths faster.
The PS3 has an incredible piece of hardware inside, the cell broadband engine. Sadly, I don't think any piece of software will fully utilize this before the next generation is released. It's infamous [lol] for being unimaginably hard to develop games on. What is does well is floating point operations, for example: it can run a brute force gravity sim with over 12,000 bodies very, very quickly and can do real time ray tracing phenomenally fast. It's just not made to develop games on, it's a supercomputer essentially. The xbox is a specialized machine made entirely for gaming, hence it will almost always run ports better. blah blah blah etc.
All that aside, based completely on what's under the hood, the PS3 will do maths faster.
Many of you have completely missed the bar on what it means to accurately program a game for it's desired machine specification.
Lets take a look at Crysis 2:
1) It's being developed with the PS3 as the lead console. Why? Ask them, but in my opinion it's because it would take them the longest to learn and allow them to benchmark from.
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.
Nvidia or ATI, or sound card issue, etc. That is why consoles are handy. Your console is more or less the same no matter what SKU you bought.
How many stories do you read of "This can't be done on the PS3". Oh that's right. None. Read the article carefully, they moved more of the code over to the faster part of the PS3 to utilize more of the architecture. It does not mean graphics solely, it has more to do with what they want to do with the game in general. If the graphics are more efficient they can add more into the game itself. More into the details, more into the responsiveness, more into what they want to show.
Graphics or not, a better representation of their game (which will be graphical. Any doubt that Graphics does not make a game is false, its a major compliment otherwise games perfected on Facebook or Iphone *shudders*) will make for a better game in general. Responsive combat, great visuals, great story, are all represented graphically and audibly.
You all didn't forget we play VIDEO - GAMES did you? Games represented through video?
And finally, all of you that talk on a purely "technical" level using numbers and saying this is better faster whatever in general need to get a clue. You have none.
There is no such thing as perfect code. Neither the PS3 or Xbox are perfect, and they have many bugs, and hoops to get through to get the game the company wants out. It's about support, and willingness of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to support those that make their games.
Just because its technically possible, doesn't mean its actually possible. You'd be shocked (and you shouldn't be) to find what ideas are turned away or "tweaked" just because money said so and the developers were not supported before money ran out.
/endrant
Lets take a look at Crysis 2:
1) It's being developed with the PS3 as the lead console. Why? Ask them, but in my opinion it's because it would take them the longest to learn and allow them to benchmark from.
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.
Nvidia or ATI, or sound card issue, etc. That is why consoles are handy. Your console is more or less the same no matter what SKU you bought.
How many stories do you read of "This can't be done on the PS3". Oh that's right. None. Read the article carefully, they moved more of the code over to the faster part of the PS3 to utilize more of the architecture. It does not mean graphics solely, it has more to do with what they want to do with the game in general. If the graphics are more efficient they can add more into the game itself. More into the details, more into the responsiveness, more into what they want to show.
Graphics or not, a better representation of their game (which will be graphical. Any doubt that Graphics does not make a game is false, its a major compliment otherwise games perfected on Facebook or Iphone *shudders*) will make for a better game in general. Responsive combat, great visuals, great story, are all represented graphically and audibly.
You all didn't forget we play VIDEO - GAMES did you? Games represented through video?
And finally, all of you that talk on a purely "technical" level using numbers and saying this is better faster whatever in general need to get a clue. You have none.
There is no such thing as perfect code. Neither the PS3 or Xbox are perfect, and they have many bugs, and hoops to get through to get the game the company wants out. It's about support, and willingness of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to support those that make their games.
Just because its technically possible, doesn't mean its actually possible. You'd be shocked (and you shouldn't be) to find what ideas are turned away or "tweaked" just because money said so and the developers were not supported before money ran out.
/endrant
Statement:
'We found that we can do more with the system after making what is critically and publicly acknowledged to be a very good game, and that more is something we can't do with another system because it involves using multiple processors, which the other system does not have. We think you'll like what we're doing.'
Ragetard Rebuttal:
'BUT GAMES THAT DO NOT DO THIS NEW TRICK AND ARE PORTS BETWEEN SYSTEMS LOOK SIMILIAR SO YOU MUST BE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS! WHY IS HE TALKING ABOUT GRAPHICS!?'
If you don't know how to read what someone is saying, you really shouldn't be commenting on their statements' merits. Fail on, ragetards! Fail on!
Sucker Punch is a company that makes good games, and are considered a 'gameplay over graphics' company. Learn what the fuck you are talking about before you decided to click on 'Quote' please.
'We found that we can do more with the system after making what is critically and publicly acknowledged to be a very good game, and that more is something we can't do with another system because it involves using multiple processors, which the other system does not have. We think you'll like what we're doing.'
Ragetard Rebuttal:
'BUT GAMES THAT DO NOT DO THIS NEW TRICK AND ARE PORTS BETWEEN SYSTEMS LOOK SIMILIAR SO YOU MUST BE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS! WHY IS HE TALKING ABOUT GRAPHICS!?'
If you don't know how to read what someone is saying, you really shouldn't be commenting on their statements' merits. Fail on, ragetards! Fail on!
Sucker Punch is a company that makes good games, and are considered a 'gameplay over graphics' company. Learn what the fuck you are talking about before you decided to click on 'Quote' please.
