Naughty Dog: Uncharted 2 'Impossible' On Xbox 360

[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....

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.

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

My point is that the "it just works" is just as untrue as a statement as when Apple make it about their OS systems and other products and the fact that even low range PC hardware is twice as capable as the consoles.
No system is ever perfect, consoles have bugs and slow framerates and graphical glitches and So does the PC.

Edit
"it just works and works well" certainly can't be applied to backwards compatabilty, supported video media formats or the Web browser + Flash support.
I know because I own one

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

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.

Because, as people will discover, that is not all GAME CONTENT filling that 25 gb... it's the same data copied over and over and over to reduce disk read and ultimately loading times. it's not a newly discovered trick with the blu-ray... they've been doing it for a while now. It's just short-cutting so that the reader can access information faster.
I suspect it has VERY little to do with the actual game data and engine requiring massive amounts of space.
Want an example? MGS4.

But I can tell you this much... If this game doesnt sell like gangbusters after it's high production costs, you can bet your ass you'll see an Xbox port.
Because the bottom line is PROFIT.

You assume...


None of us have any idea what's filling up that 25 gb because none of us have played the game, for all you know it could be massive.

Besides, why would he say it wouldn't work on the 360 if it would, no one is that stupid.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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.

Dude...... 2 or more GB of ramm a modern dual core CPU of more than 2Ghz and a 80-150$ PCI E on a solid mobo will run circles around the PS3.... and you don't even have to spend more than 500$..... so perhaps you need to cut back on your PS3 koolaid intake...

If MS offered a default locked OS environment mode where you can't change alot it would help save alot of user damage issues on in the PC environment otherwise it comes down to how much time spent on to hardware support of which you probably could cover more PCs than Ps3s with the time and effort spent on tuning a PS3 game to get it to work right on the PS3, but then again there are more active and less fussy consumers on the consoles so why bother less effort for profit is one of the main mindsets of modern media.

Software is generally made on multi core PC style hardware thus the parallel processing nature of the PS3 ultimately limits it, well that and its ramm. The 360 and to a much lesser exstent PS2/Game cube shows better how well codeing can do on more standardized hardware since its nothing more than a custom PC build even despite the poor hardware design that handicaps it greatly.

Now when it comes down to what matters one size fits all cookie cutter control schemes is one of the main reasons why I prefer a PC over a limited and poorly thought out control pad even if the dual shock style of pad is the more superior design it pales in comparison to a good mouse and keyboard for most games, though side scrolling and static backgrounds(non 3rd person) maximize control pad usage but anything X person is better with customizable controls of which devs never give enough options over.

At the end of the day The PS3 and 360 are limited heavily by how they made them the 360 as a closed and limited frankenstein of design and the PS3 as a bloated beast with 2 achilles heels , the WII is limited as well in that they did not refine the control method for gamers but rather focused on casuals so much precision something needed for basic control was overlooked.

And don't get me started on the PC port me downs and poor mainstream support is hurting PC gaming tho over all its better than it ever was at a shear profit perspective but you have have to dig harder these days to find gems and that is as true if not more true for console gaming as corporate rushes development to meet fads and trends rather than make the ebst product they can.

I have more than enough criticism for media and gaming in general and the sheeple zombies that would rather lower their standards thus making things worse than waiting and buying whats not so casually dumb.

It should not matter if X console has issues and not as great as its described, know its issues and rim on them while you enjoy what you can get out the games on it!

 

[Bat Vader]

Who really cares whether the 360 can run this or not?

I am guessing 360, PS3, and PC fanboys care but then again fanboys will say or do anything to defend their consoles and PC.

 

[NinjaRebel]

Wow pretty bold statement, if the graphics in Fallout 3 can look better on 360 then in PS3 then this game can be made on 360. Not in the exact same way, but they could make this for 360 if they wanted. Even with that, Someone got a bonus check!

 

[SinisterDeath]

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.

Like I said, its not true. Else, why would the PS3 have something like 50x more power when it comes to a specific type of 'code or variable'? The PS3, is awesome at very specific types of calculations. That means, if you were to throw that specific calculation at both the PS3 and the 360, the Ps3 would win by a mile. That was my point.
360 > PS3 in terms of general CPU calculations.
PS3 > 360 in terms of specific calculations.

That was my entire point.

 

[SinisterDeath]

Software is generally made on multi core PC style hardware thus the parallel processing nature of the PS3 ultimately limits it, well that and its ramm. The 360 and to a much lesser exstent PS2/Game cube shows better how well codeing can do on more standardized hardware since its nothing more than a custom PC build even despite the poor hardware design that handicaps it greatly.

Ps2 was harder to code for, then the Ps3 was. Thats coming out developers who've made games for PSX/Ps2, and Ps3. The only reason Ps2 was the standardized hardware for consoles, is quite simply, its the highest selling console of all time. They had 10 years to develop for it!

Now when it comes down to what matters one size fits all cookie cutter control schemes is one of the main reasons why I prefer a PC over a limited and poorly thought out control pad even if the dual shock style of pad is the more superior design it pales in comparison to a good mouse and keyboard for most games, though side scrolling and static backgrounds(non 3rd person) maximize control pad usage but anything X person is better with customizable controls of which devs never give enough options over.

To be fair, not all games are created equal. The shooting part of uncharted is much better suited for a mouse, yes. But the tomb raider, scaling of walls, no. Thats better for a console controller.

Its similar to tanks in Shooter games, or cars. I'd much rather use a dual shock over a mouse any day of the week.

Alot of the games you can customize the controls anyway you like it. If you want to shoot using your Dpad, and change weapons with the triggers, whatever. The only ones they don't let you change are the movement on the analog sticks/aiming. Though it 'can' be done on some games. (you can even swap em)

Course, there are games were you can only use certain 'layouts', the devs were just 'cheap' in those games.

 

[katsabas]

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 *****.

I don't and I am PS3 owner. But if you want to talk about bitches, check out your own avatar. Like Bethesda and MS, Naughty Dog has been supporting Sony from day one. Crash Bandicoot, Jak and Daxter etc. They have done pretty well for themselves so why change the course?

Whether XBOX can run U2 or not is of no importance. Having recently dropped the price, Sony was bound to pay someone to say something and toss oil in the fire. That's business. PS3 won't get Left For Dead 4 even though it can run it easily for example and on the other hand, XBOX will not get Infamous although it is surely able to run it. It is not technical issues that do not allow several titles to cross over to other systems but the profits. Both companies are full of shit when it comes down to it. And why wouldn't they be? MS has that Lamestation douche while Sony has their marketing department that is incompetent.

 

[v3n0mat3]

I wouldn't say "impossible", more like "not the same quality as the PS3 version". That's a feasible answer.

Also, I'm just going to put this out: UNCHARTED HAS A GOOD FAN BASE AS IT WAS A GOOD GAME. The only people that say it's "average" are obvious Xbots who sit at home playing CoD4+WaW or Halo 3 and never ever play the games on the other consoles.

 

[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.

Like I said, its not true. Else, why would the PS3 have something like 50x more power when it comes to a specific type of 'code or variable'? The PS3, is awesome at very specific types of calculations. That means, if you were to throw that specific calculation at both the PS3 and the 360, the Ps3 would win by a mile. That was my point.
360 > PS3 in terms of general CPU calculations.
PS3 > 360 in terms of specific calculations.

That was my entire point.

Arggg! I was over generalizing and ranting... let me make it as simple as I can without drooling again.

Sure it can crunch numbers better but realistically speaking that means more physic's and data (de)compression and that's about it as the graphic limitations put it right back in the range of the 360 meaning that it can not really do anything more than the 360, or at the very least nothing can be done on the PS3 that can not be emulated on the 360.

I suppose I can break it down more and say yes the PS3 is more powerful but not completely beyond what the 360 can do. This is almost like the Genisis and SNES days the SNES had better colors a scaling chip and better sound but sega after time managed to keep up with just about anything the SNES could throw at it.

And yes I like splitting hairs

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Dude...... 2 or more GB of ramm a modern dual core CPU of more than 2Ghz and a 80-150$ PCI E on a solid mobo will run circles around the PS3.... and you don't even have to spend more than 500$..... so perhaps you need to cut back on your PS3 koolaid intake...

ok you are wrong and i'll explain why

first off with that 2 GB of ram, you are probly using 500+ MB for the OS alone, so now you are down to 1.5GB, then you have what ever other programs you are running, so that takes it down a bit more.

there is also the amount of driver calls that need to be relayed thru the OS, which impedes the performance of the PC as well. not to mention the normal OS tasks, such as services and windows had a TON of running services that really don't need to, not to mention stuff like anti-virus.

DirectX was initially designed to work around this and talk directly to the hardware instead of going thru the OS in order to improve performance. however due to m$'s problem with good memory management, yes vista is even worse than XP at it and frankly should run faster than it does but that's a whole other conversation. even DirectX has a bunch of issues getting rid of the OS and talking directly to the hardware and isn't overly nice on the memory

keeping all those things in mind you have now probly exceeded the ram in your system and forced to use a lot more of the swap space found on your hard drive.

a PS3 or a 360 does not have any of the over head, the OS on both systems has a very small memory footprint compared to windows. this allows it to run things better with less. they will always be able to do more with less because they have less of an overhead to worry about

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Thanks for all that informative information on the PC vs a gaming console (PS3).

But can it run a game straight out the box, correctly, every time, without having to do anything at all such as meeting arbitrary "requirements" that seem to fit only about 10% of the gaming community at any one time, avoid game crashing glitches, and low levels of installation while allowing the gamer to play within 10 minutes of opening the BOX?

I'll go ahead and answer for you.

NO, it cannot.

Fatality
PS3 Wins.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Sounds like a paid statement to me....

*Gets handed a bag of money* I think you should not listen to this comment, and instead listen to the CEO who is a father of 2 *looks at his palm* Coaches deez balls... no wait.. *checks palm again* Tee Ball and is a trustworthy man of great status... Also, do not tell anybody you are reading a script off your palm or we will kill you...


Wow was that paid or what? They MUST be desperate XD Basically what they are doing is this.
As we all know, uncharted was a crapfest compilement of stolen ideas. Well, they figure the ONLY way to sell now, is to win over the fanboy crowd XD Pathetic honestly XD

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Thanks for all that informative information on the PC vs a gaming console (PS3).

But can it run a game straight out the box, correctly, every time, without having to do anything at all such as meeting arbitrary "requirements" that seem to fit only about 10% of the gaming community at any one time, avoid game crashing glitches, and low levels of installation while allowing the gamer to play within 10 minutes of opening the BOX?

I'll go ahead and answer for you.

NO, it cannot.

Fatality
PS3 Wins.

Can ps3 give flawless controls over RTS games? Can ps3 support player made mods for games? Can ps3 make use of 30+ buttons of controls? Can ps3 match High Budget PC graphics? Can ps3 run all it's games flawlessly with no lag? Can ps3 be upgraded to run all it's games flawlessly with no lag? If you answered NO to all of these, then you win a cookie.

PS3 wins if your a lazy tard with no job XD

 

[Chipperz]

...Wow, people still haven't worked out that graphics mean fuck all to a game? Yes, Uncharted 2 will be a very pretty game, for the entirety of the five-six hours it will take your average person to complete it and never touch the multiplayer when they could be playing Warhawk/Killzone 2/Call of Duty/LittleBIGPlanet instead.

It's especially sad when "LULZ GRAFIX!!" fever happens to a developer

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Thanks for all that informative information on the PC vs a gaming console (PS3).

But can it run a game straight out the box, correctly, every time, without having to do anything at all such as meeting arbitrary "requirements" that seem to fit only about 10% of the gaming community at any one time, avoid game crashing glitches, and low levels of installation while allowing the gamer to play within 10 minutes of opening the BOX?

I'll go ahead and answer for you.

NO, it cannot.

Fatality
PS3 Wins.

Can ps3 give flawless controls over RTS games? Can ps3 support player made mods for games? Can ps3 make use of 30+ buttons of controls? Can ps3 match High Budget PC graphics? Can ps3 run all it's games flawlessly with no lag? Can ps3 be upgraded to run all it's games flawlessly with no lag? If you answered NO to all of these, then you win a cookie.

PS3 wins if your a lazy tard with no job XD

actually it can, the PS3 has full mouse and keyboard support and i'm pretty sure that can be used in game as well, so it could easily do all that stuff

also, it can run stuff a high end PC can with less horse power, it ran Crysis fine
it can run all it's games without lag
it doesn't have to be upgraded to run a new game, tho you can put in a new bigger hard drive
it can also support player mods, look at little big planet

so you lost your little thing and PS3 now beats PC

really you should do your homework first and learn something before you get easily proven wrong

 

[SovietSecrets]

Why are people arguing about PC vs PS3? I don't get how one can win over the other, they are two different systems that people prefer. Both can play games, what else is there to argue about?
On topic though who cares? Isn't the first time a developer has said bad stuff about a console. This is pretty much Valve saying the PS3 is too hard to develop for cept now another company is saying something about the 360.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

To clarify, I don't mean "Who cares about Uncharted?" Because it was a critically acclaimed game that sold well, so many PS3 players care about it.

I mean, why do I, as a non PS3 owner, care that it can only run on the PS3 because of it's magical tron lasers? There was never any question it would be on the 360, no petitions, no fan outcry- it's just completly out of left field.

So...who cares?

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Thanks for all that informative information on the PC vs a gaming console (PS3).

But can it run a game straight out the box, correctly, every time, without having to do anything at all such as meeting arbitrary "requirements" that seem to fit only about 10% of the gaming community at any one time, avoid game crashing glitches, and low levels of installation while allowing the gamer to play within 10 minutes of opening the BOX?

I'll go ahead and answer for you.

NO, it cannot.

Fatality
PS3 Wins.

Can ps3 give flawless controls over RTS games? Can ps3 support player made mods for games? Can ps3 make use of 30+ buttons of controls? Can ps3 match High Budget PC graphics? Can ps3 run all it's games flawlessly with no lag? Can ps3 be upgraded to run all it's games flawlessly with no lag? If you answered NO to all of these, then you win a cookie.

PS3 wins if your a lazy tard with no job XD

Um.. actually...
Let me address this in rapid fire fashion.

Yes, it's called a USB keyboard.
Yes, if anybody cared to explore that but they don't. Little Big Planet is example.
Yes, see answer #1
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yes.
Yes, since those games are MADE specifically for that console's hardware. Can a PC? I'll answer that for you... "No, not without tweaks, updates, and expensive upgrades"
No, since there is no need. See answer #5.

I guess I wont get a cookie, but I will get an A+ for answering correctly.
The big excuse a few WEEKS ago was that the PS3 was "too expensive".
A bad ass gaming rig is really what is "Too expensive".

PS3 = formerly $399 now $299.
PC capable of playing the latest and greatest flawlessly = $1000
Show me where I can get a PC capable of playing Batman's Arkham Asylum on anything RESEMBLING the same level of quality for $299.

Save yourself the trouble. You CAN'T.
Sure, you have a larger user-created mod community... but that's usually because you have less GAMES to occupy your time with or you're one of those few people who get off to that stuff. Fallout 3 mods look impressive, but quite frankly, many mods are hastily made, poorly constructed, and worst of all, BORING. I'd rather wait for DLC content by a PROFESSIONAL developer than be arsed with spending an afternoon wading through waves of shitty, thrown-together half-assed unoriginal mods or toy around with poorly designed skins just to find the odd "diamond in the rough" worth giving a go.

For people who strictly want to play games, ONLY games, and move on with their lives, the PS3 is the best value. Plus, I can play from the comfort of my bed, couch, chair, floor. Hard to do that with a PC without some form of extra effort such as buying a wireless controller, hooking it up to a tv, a wireless keyboard, etc.

And good luck playing your PC with your FRIENDS, unless you're one of those types who has buddies who enjoy huddling around your monitor at your desk like highschoolers looking at coed porn.

 

[Booze Zombie]

*Cough* Bullcrit! *Cough*

Seriously though, if I was playing games for graphics, I wouldn't be playing games.