Naughty Dog: Uncharted 2 'Impossible' On Xbox 360

[herio]

i have a mild hate for Naughty Dog the make jack and daxter which was fun had a nice ending was then next jen they threw out there whimsical fantasy elf world for a this guy im all for new things but to me there not the same so i don't care what there on there dead to me

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I see now, from what I first read it sounded like they just copy/pasted the entire game over and over till it was full to improve speeds, but that wouldn't make much sense as the optimal read speeds are near the core of the disk, and thus adding the same data further out wouldn't make sense. But I can see how frequently used data such as UI elements etc, could benefit from being in multiple locations on the disk.
Knowledge is power!

Yup
I disagree with that article's assumptive premise that blu-ray might not be the best medium for games, because as they explain their process it completely cancels that out. However, what this tells me is that statements such as "we filled the ENTIRE BR DISK!" might not actually equate to "100s of hours of gameplay content" that I think some people assume it would mean.

I DO believe however that as a dedicated PS3 developer, Naughty Dog has had PLENTY of time to figure out new tricks and really explore developing for the system in general, So I'm sure they understand it better than the majority of game developers. Just like we saw with the PS2, even up until the end, companies were constantly performing 'miracles' in programming, making games bigger, deeper, prettier... look at the early PS2 games and then look at Shadow of the Colossus and you'll see just how far they took that technology to it's maximum.

HOWEVER (you knew it was coming), I do not believe that any game at this TIME is beyond the capabilities of the 360. While the 360 does not have the Cell Processor, I personally believe the Cell in it's current use in the PS3 does not have a sizable advantage over the processor in the 360. We arent talking about the NEXT generation of consoles, and the 360 is a close competitor in power and ability. The PS3 is better, but only slightly, but that difference is only about as broad as the difference between the PS2 and the PSP in my opinion, to use a comparison.

This game could work and work well with minor tweaks on the Xbox if they truly wanted to port it. Would it be EXACTLY the same as the PS3 version? No, of course not.
Would most gamers know or lament those differences?
Probably Not either.

 

[Antareus]

Crysis 2 on the console, will not run the Cry engine 1, the one that made PC's cry in pain when it was first released. Instead it will use Cry engine 3, which is an engine optimized for CONSOLES. So obviously the game is going to work on consoles if it's built for them. Also Far cry 2 used the cry engine 2 and had impressive graphics, but that's different, Uncharted uses a different engine, and different techniques.
Tbh my guess would be that what the guy was on about how the size is not practical for the 360 (multiple dvds for a short game?) and how their current engine uses a technology that's in the PS3 and not in the 360, and thus it would not be possible to move the game straight to the 360 without some tweakage (maybe even major tweakage for all we know).

You missed my point entirely! The point of my post was to say that if something with large open game worlds and extreme detail like Crysis, or RPG games can fit onto one DVD with no problem, there is no reason at all why a Tomb Raider clone (I mean that in the best way possible) has to be 25GB. It's just incompetent compression methods.

The original Crysis is 6.5GB in size, that's not even a full dual-layer.

Oblivion, the most massive game I have ever played with decent graphics to boot, fits onto one single-layered DVD on the PC.

GTAIV, another huge and incredibly detailed game fits onto a dual-layered DVD on the Xbox360.

So they're just making excuses here. As for whether or not the 360 is graphically capable of running this smoothly is a different topic, and not something I know enough about to strongly argue with.

But again, all those titles you mentioned were designed to fit on a dual layered disk (with the except of the PS3 versions, but I doubt that they increased the size for that game). But in the end, I see your point but at the same time we don't know how big Uncharted 2 really is (game wise not storage) or which parts of the game are taking up this massive space.
For all we know, they could've added 5 1080p and 720p cinematic clips to increase the size .

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

If Crytek can get CryEngine 3 running perfectly on 360, then these guys clearly aren't trying hard enough. Seriously, CryEngine 3 looks absolutely amazing, literally everything is rendered in realtime, so i see no excuse here, other than the size, which is understandable. Although i am wondering why exactly this game is taking up 25 GB, that's freaking huge.

90% of that data is probably a huge porn collection, purposely making the disc too much for the 360 to handle. Crysis fit on a 5 GB disc. A huge porn collection fits on a 5 GB disc. This is either a huge fucking game, or an average game with a MASSIVE collection of porn tacked on. It's a win-win situation.

 

[Zer_]

**Snip for Space***

Actually, Onmi, when they say they are using 100% of the power available to them it usually means that they are in fact at the memory capacity, and thus they couldn't add any new effects ot the game without significant slowdowns. What they don't say is that they could actually spend a lot of time optimizing the shaders, and they could also find new tricks to squeeze out more from the same amount of power. It's all about efficiency.

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

In all seriousness, does anybody believe this bullshit? It could be made for the 360. But for some reason, Naughty Dog likes to be Sony's *****.

 

[Robert632]

In all seriousness, does anybody believe this bullshit? It could be made for the 360. But for some reason, Naughty Dog likes to be Sony's *****.

it all started one day when sony snuck up behind ND with a cloraphorm laced tissue. next thing ND knew, there was a leather whip waking him/her up...

 

[Cuniculus]

Definitely sounds like something they were made to say, but it could be true I guess. Blueray DOES hold more information. Although, we can all agree that there are ways to make it fit onto an Xbox 360. They rip tons of shit out of games to make them fit on Wii. Just do the same.

But why the hell would you want to remove content from a game? They aren't doing it with FFXIII they are just increasing the disc requirements for the 360.
I think this is more of a processing issue than content.

*suppresses inner fanboy*

Okay I can see how that works with Uncharted 2, but like you said Earnest the gameplay better be good as well.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that it's possible. The main idea here is to discredit Xbox 360 in favor of PS3. If people really wanted it on Xbox, they could downgrade the graphics a bit or something.

 

[Kollega]

It be good to see Uncharted on 360, but obviously Sony will never allow it. Just like MGS4.

No-one needs/cares about Uncharted. Or MGS4 for that matter. At least i do not. Only reasons to have a console are Ratchet,Clank,and Brutal Legend - there's really nothing excelent besides these games.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

If Crytek can get CryEngine 3 running perfectly on 360, then these guys clearly aren't trying hard enough. Seriously, CryEngine 3 looks absolutely amazing, literally everything is rendered in realtime, so i see no excuse here, other than the size, which is understandable. Although i am wondering why exactly this game is taking up 25 GB, that's freaking huge.

90% of that data is probably a huge porn collection, purposely making the disc too much for the 360 to handle. Crysis fit on a 5 GB disc. A huge porn collection fits on a 5 GB disc. This is either a huge fucking game, or an average game with a MASSIVE collection of porn tacked on. It's a win-win situation.

Damn. You just did a better job persuading me to buy this game than an entire marketing department could.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

**Snip for Space***

Actually, Onmi, when they say they are using 100% of the power available to them it usually means that they are in fact at the memory capacity, and thus they couldn't add any new effects ot the game without significant slowdowns. What they don't say is that they could actually spend a lot of time optimizing the shaders, and they could also find new tricks to squeeze out more from the same amount of power. It's all about efficiency.

This.

I suspect this is exactly what they mean... That using their current understanding of the PS3 architecture and programming, they have maxed out the PS3's physical hardware capabilities, but certainly not due to making the most awesome and expansively detailed game ever in the making of ever.

I think that if this game were to perform the way people THINK Naughty Dog means by stating they have maxed it out, then people might be slightly disappointed.

Because honestly, if this game ran with all the possible bells and whistles with the full power of the PS3 optimized, it probably would be too visually BUSY to be fun. That, and just because a game LOOKS beautiful, doesnt mean it's good and/OR fun.

Might I point to Too Human, a game that Looked amazing and quite honestly, I really did get into the story which was really good.

My problem is that all that imagery, all that beauty and scenery and ragdolling and particle effects and light and shadow and blades of grass swaying in the breeze and realistic dripping water physics and the sun glinting off the snow... it's all shite if the GAME PLAY FAILS.

I tried like HELL to like Too Human. I played it and FORCED myself to play it, partly to advance the story, partly thinking that once I got into the combat system, explored it's depth, tweaked out my character's stats and such, it would evolve, get deeper, and become ten times more fun.

Boy was I ever fucking wrong.

So the moral kids... Just because a game looks impressive to the eyes, usually means that the game is trying to hide it's flaws behind realistic grass blade physics and realistic wet shirts. Be suspicious

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Meh there is nothing on the PS3 that probably wont run better on the 360. People forget the PS3 is still a pain to code for and that takes up alot of its power still.

Also uncharted is a decent series, better than halo SP wise at least....*hides*.

Thats not true at all.
For example, PS3 has the highest score of any other computer, for a very special type of calculation. I believe they said it accelled at floating point calculations? But vector? Calculations it has to emulate, so it nose dives.

http://gizmodo.com/246664/breaking-ps3-triples-folding-at-homes-computing-power-to-over-500-tflopspflops-in-spitting-range
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats

Its very true because of the PS3 bottle necks and code issues, if it were not for the disc space issues (which are easily over came by the HDD FYI) there would be nothing the PS3 could do realistically better than the 360.

Because of how they made the PS3 its simply not that much better pure power wise than the 360, now in 3+ years the codeing issues will be non existent and with that out of the way it should be easier to utilize the PS3s power at that time it could do things , excluding disc space, the 360 struggles with. But until then the PS3 aint better than the 360 to any noticable extent.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

**Snip for Space***

Actually, Onmi, when they say they are using 100% of the power available to them it usually means that they are in fact at the memory capacity, and thus they couldn't add any new effects ot the game without significant slowdowns. What they don't say is that they could actually spend a lot of time optimizing the shaders, and they could also find new tricks to squeeze out more from the same amount of power. It's all about efficiency.

This.

I suspect this is exactly what they mean... That using their current understanding of the PS3 architecture and programming, they have maxed out the PS3's physical hardware capabilities, but certainly not due to making the most awesome and expansively detailed game ever in the making of ever.

I think that if this game were to perform the way people THINK Naughty Dog means by stating they have maxed it out, then people might be slightly disappointed.

Because honestly, if this game ran with all the possible bells and whistles with the full power of the PS3 optimized, it probably would be too visually BUSY to be fun. That, and just because a game LOOKS beautiful, doesnt mean it's good and/OR fun.

Might I point to Too Human, a game that Looked amazing and quite honestly, I really did get into the story which was really good.

My problem is that all that imagery, all that beauty and scenery and ragdolling and particle effects and light and shadow and blades of grass swaying in the breeze and realistic dripping water physics and the sun glinting off the snow... it's all shite if the GAME PLAY FAILS.

I tried like HELL to like Too Human. I played it and FORCED myself to play it, partly to advance the story, partly thinking that once I got into the combat system, explored it's depth, tweaked out my character's stats and such, it would evolve, get deeper, and become ten times more fun.

Boy was I ever fucking wrong.

So the moral kids... Just because a game looks impressive to the eyes, usually means that the game is trying to hide it's flaws behind realistic grass blade physics and realistic wet shirts. Be suspicious

If the PS3 had two or three times as much ramm it would really be the most powerful system that could easily rival mid range gaming PCs but with the ram and coding issues its bearly the 360s equal most of the time, not saying it wont get better but devs/pubs chase graphics and power and now cloud computing and forget games are meant to be fun not pretty....

 

[HyenaThePirate]

If the PS3 had two or three times as much ramm it would really be the most powerful system that could easily rival mid range gaming PCs but with the ram and coding issues its bearly the 360s equal most of the time, not saying it wont get better but devs/pubs chase graphics and power and now cloud computing and forget games are meant to be fun not pretty....

What, may I ask, is YOUR definition of "mid-range" gaming PC? Because from where I'm sitting, the PS3 more than rivals a mid-range gaming PC, but it surpasses it.
Sure, it can't match those on the bleeding edge of technology gaming pc's with their quad cores, dual sli cards, and refrigeration units perhaps, but in terms of size, portability, and space, it earns an advantage. Oh yeah, and COST! How much is a "mid-range" gaming pc these days? and is that a garuntee you can play the latest games on it with all the bells and whistles, fully optimized? Hell no.

At the end of the day, you'll spend $300 on the PS3, and know that ANY game you buy for it will WORK straight out the box, no hunting down and updating drivers, no tweaking settings, no calibrating controller schemes... it just WORKS and works well.

OR, you can spend a cool "G", and end up with a PC that STILL might have difficulties playing the latest PC game, spend hours messing with settings to get the framerate and visuals JUST right, adjusting a controller scheme, and still possibly wind up with errors.

The PS3 does what it's designed to do and does it well, every time without fail, something that the PC community can not claim.

 

[jamesworkshop]

If the PS3 had two or three times as much ramm it would really be the most powerful system that could easily rival mid range gaming PCs but with the ram and coding issues its bearly the 360s equal most of the time, not saying it wont get better but devs/pubs chase graphics and power and now cloud computing and forget games are meant to be fun not pretty....

What, may I ask, is YOUR definition of "mid-range" gaming PC? Because from where I'm sitting, the PS3 more than rivals a mid-range gaming PC, but it surpasses it.
Sure, it can't match those on the bleeding edge of technology gaming pc's with their quad cores, dual sli cards, and refrigeration units perhaps, but in terms of size, portability, and space, it earns an advantage. Oh yeah, and COST! How much is a "mid-range" gaming pc these days? and is that a garuntee you can play the latest games on it with all the bells and whistles, fully optimized? Hell no.

At the end of the day, you'll spend $300 on the PS3, and know that ANY game you buy for it will WORK straight out the box, no hunting down and updating drivers, no tweaking settings, no calibrating controller schemes... it just WORKS and works well.

OR, you can spend a cool "G", and end up with a PC that STILL might have difficulties playing the latest PC game, spend hours messing with settings to get the framerate and visuals JUST right, adjusting a controller scheme, and still possibly wind up with errors.

The PS3 does what it's designed to do and does it well, every time without fail, something that the PC community can not claim.

Except the crashes in the MAG beta or the masive list of bugs in Fallout 3 or the update needed to solve the graphical glitches in Ghostbusters, no system is infallible.

Besides when £80 cards can play games at 2560x1600 which is twice the maximum supported output resolution of both 360/PS3 even the low range is far more capable

Maxed in game with a small amount of AA
1080P is no trouble for the modern PC so far almost every 1080p console game have been 2D downloadable arcade games
£100 can get you the GTS250 and thats hitting the in-game framerate limit

 

[Bat Vader]

A 360 may not be able to run it but a PC sure can.

 

[Bat Vader]

If the PS3 had two or three times as much ramm it would really be the most powerful system that could easily rival mid range gaming PCs but with the ram and coding issues its bearly the 360s equal most of the time, not saying it wont get better but devs/pubs chase graphics and power and now cloud computing and forget games are meant to be fun not pretty....

What, may I ask, is YOUR definition of "mid-range" gaming PC? Because from where I'm sitting, the PS3 more than rivals a mid-range gaming PC, but it surpasses it.
Sure, it can't match those on the bleeding edge of technology gaming pc's with their quad cores, dual sli cards, and refrigeration units perhaps, but in terms of size, portability, and space, it earns an advantage. Oh yeah, and COST! How much is a "mid-range" gaming pc these days? and is that a garuntee you can play the latest games on it with all the bells and whistles, fully optimized? Hell no.

At the end of the day, you'll spend $300 on the PS3, and know that ANY game you buy for it will WORK straight out the box, no hunting down and updating drivers, no tweaking settings, no calibrating controller schemes... it just WORKS and works well.

OR, you can spend a cool "G", and end up with a PC that STILL might have difficulties playing the latest PC game, spend hours messing with settings to get the framerate and visuals JUST right, adjusting a controller scheme, and still possibly wind up with errors.

The PS3 does what it's designed to do and does it well, every time without fail, something that the PC community can not claim.

Fanboys: The people to laugh at on the internet.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

If the PS3 had two or three times as much ramm it would really be the most powerful system that could easily rival mid range gaming PCs but with the ram and coding issues its bearly the 360s equal most of the time, not saying it wont get better but devs/pubs chase graphics and power and now cloud computing and forget games are meant to be fun not pretty....

What, may I ask, is YOUR definition of "mid-range" gaming PC? Because from where I'm sitting, the PS3 more than rivals a mid-range gaming PC, but it surpasses it.
Sure, it can't match those on the bleeding edge of technology gaming pc's with their quad cores, dual sli cards, and refrigeration units perhaps, but in terms of size, portability, and space, it earns an advantage. Oh yeah, and COST! How much is a "mid-range" gaming pc these days? and is that a garuntee you can play the latest games on it with all the bells and whistles, fully optimized? Hell no.

At the end of the day, you'll spend $300 on the PS3, and know that ANY game you buy for it will WORK straight out the box, no hunting down and updating drivers, no tweaking settings, no calibrating controller schemes... it just WORKS and works well.

OR, you can spend a cool "G", and end up with a PC that STILL might have difficulties playing the latest PC game, spend hours messing with settings to get the framerate and visuals JUST right, adjusting a controller scheme, and still possibly wind up with errors.

The PS3 does what it's designed to do and does it well, every time without fail, something that the PC community can not claim.

Except the crashes in the MAG beta or the masive list of bugs in Fallout 3 or the update needed to solve the graphical glitches in Ghostbusters, no system is infallible.

Besides when £80 cards can play games at 2560x1600 which is twice the maximum supported output resolution of both 360/PS3 even the low range is far more capable

Maxed in game with a small amount of AA
1080P is no trouble for the modern PC so far almost every 1080p console game have been 2D downloadable arcade games
£100 can get you the GTS250 and thats hitting the in-game framerate limit

I'm not sure I get your point...