Why does 360 look (and run) better than PS3? (multi platform games)

[Woe Is You]

Those great games you mentioned were made when getting used to the Saturn's hardware and tools, but unfotunately not enough developers caught on with them to really put much effort into it. Sega's marketing was horrible with too many of their different systems in different parts of the world, so how would they expect developers to get used to their new platform if they're still supporting their old one?

The Saturn was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. You don't know how the consumers/developers will react to your product, so they didn't support the Saturn enough which gave way to the Dreamcast and such. I'd also assume the Saturn wasn't advertised enoguh to really get out because of all the other systems SEGA had to support, and when Playstation came out SEGA was basically in shambles.

Except the games I mentioned were a 2D platformer from the PS1 with extra features (like the ability to play as Maria) and a shmup. Those aren't really showcasing the power of any hardware: technically speaking SOTN could've been made on the SNES and the latter game wasn't a terribly good looking game even for its time.

And the Saturn not succeeding really wasn't just that the whole system was a clusterfuck in design or Sega's politics with releasing add-ons, though those were contributing to its success (or lack thereof). Sega also pissed off a bunch of developers AND chains like Wal-mart by a surprise attack launch. Now, if you don't have developers...and have pissed off big chains to the point of not selling your system, it's pretty much game over.

These grudges carried on to the Dreamcast era, part of the reason why Sega folded their hardware section.

Developers apparantly caught on with the Playstation's hardware more for whatever reason, so it was successful.

Compared the competition, the PS1 was rather easy to develop for, the CDs provided the system with a cheap means of cramming loads of stuff onto a disc and there was a big company backing it. After Square jumped ship, other developers quickly moved to the PS1 too. And after that it's the obvious: people bought the PS1 since it had loads of games, developers made games because loads of people had the PS1. You really can't have one without the other in the middle of a console generation.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

I've heard a couple of Devolopers say the PS3 is a ***** to work with. No idea why

 

[Galletea]

I think it's cause games are easier to make for the 360 cause it just uses the same technology they're already used to. and the online thing is more prevalent there, so ps3 titles are just ports.
I'm not bothered, I liked Bioshock and then MGS4 and now the 360 is unloved and the PS3 is just there cause I like playing ps2 games.

 

[bad rider]

Actually a few games which require multi-disc will suffer on the 360. (At least until they add the option to install games to the hard drive within a month or two.)

 

[Aries_Split]

The PS3 isn't more powerful that is just marketing Hype. Learn a bit about the hardware and software tools and you realise neither is faster they are both fairly even in capabilities.

They just have different architecture so porting titles from the 360 to the PS3 causes issues. Porting the other way is generally much easier. Which is why you find a lot of companies now leading on the PS3 when creating multi platform games.

Just down to the way memory is managed and the tools at their disposal.

This is bullshit. You obviously know nothing.

I was going to tell you why you were wrong, but sense your so arrogant as to tell someone ELSE to go look at the hardware that I won't even bother.

As to the topic at hand, The 360's programming language XNA, is extremely similar to the PC's. The PS3's architecture isn't hard to use, it's just foreign. Most developers develop on the 360 and port to the PC, or the other way around, and do a quick and dirty port to the PS3, not really optimizing the code nor taking advantage of the hardware.

That's why when a developer takes the time and really works hard on PS3 exclusives, they far out class most of the 360's games.

 

[Woe Is You]

As to the topic at hand, The 360's programming language XNA, is extremely similar to the PC's. The PS3's architecture isn't hard to use, it's just foreign.

With the condescending tone of yours, you'd think that spending 5 minutes with a search engine would give you enough information to know that XNA is not a programming language, but a set of tools and libraries. It's basically just a framework to make a developer's life easier.

And the main problem with PS3's (CPU) architecture is the simple fact that multiprocessing is infinitely harder than just having a single process. Then there's the fact that 8 of those cores excel only at floating point calculations. And that you have a powerful as hell CPU but only 256MB of system memory.

It's vastly different, yes, but there are also design decisions that make no sense at other than to make development on it harder. But I also perfectly see why a game built from the ground-up for the PS3 will be also be a challenge to port over, since the engine would require quite a bit of tweaking to work on another platform.

 

[Jumplion]

Those great games you mentioned were made when getting used to the Saturn's hardware and tools, but unfotunately not enough developers caught on with them to really put much effort into it. Sega's marketing was horrible with too many of their different systems in different parts of the world, so how would they expect developers to get used to their new platform if they're still supporting their old one?

The Saturn was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. You don't know how the consumers/developers will react to your product, so they didn't support the Saturn enough which gave way to the Dreamcast and such. I'd also assume the Saturn wasn't advertised enoguh to really get out because of all the other systems SEGA had to support, and when Playstation came out SEGA was basically in shambles.

Except the games I mentioned were a 2D platformer from the PS1 with extra features (like the ability to play as Maria) and a shmup. Those aren't really showcasing the power of any hardware: technically speaking SOTN could've been made on the SNES and the latter game wasn't a terribly good looking game even for its time.

And the Saturn not succeeding really wasn't just that the whole system was a clusterfuck in design or Sega's politics with releasing add-ons, though those were contributing to its success (or lack thereof). Sega also pissed off a bunch of developers AND chains like Wal-mart by a surprise attack launch. Now, if you don't have developers...and have pissed off big chains to the point of not selling your system, it's pretty much game over.

These grudges carried on to the Dreamcast era, part of the reason why Sega folded their hardware section.

Developers apparantly caught on with the Playstation's hardware more for whatever reason, so it was successful.

Compared the competition, the PS1 was rather easy to develop for, the CDs provided the system with a cheap means of cramming loads of stuff onto a disc and there was a big company backing it. After Square jumped ship, other developers quickly moved to the PS1 too. And after that it's the obvious: people bought the PS1 since it had loads of games, developers made games because they loads of people had the PS1. You really can't have one without the other in the middle of a console generation.

So, it was SEGA's own fault for making the system a failure with what they were doing. With SEGA's horrible market planning and support for their systems, how could developers possibly get used to one system if a new one just as quickly popped up?

My point still stands though, developers had complained that the PS1/PS2 were hard to work with but in the end they got used to it and stopped complaining. I've heard (don't remember where unfortunately) that if companies worked with the PS2 model (which they most certainly did) then the PS3 archetecture was easier to use, so make that of what you will.

 

[Aries_Split]

As to the topic at hand, The 360's programming language XNA, is extremely similar to the PC's. The PS3's architecture isn't hard to use, it's just foreign.

With the condescending tone of yours, you'd think that spending 5 minutes with a search engine would give you enough information to know that XNA is not a programming language, but a set of tools and libraries. It's basically just a framework to make a developer's life easier.

And the main problem with PS3's (CPU) architecture is the simple fact that multiprocessing is infinitely harder than having a single process. Then there's the fact that 8 of those cores excel only at floating point calculations. And that you have a powerful as hell CPU but only 256MB of system memory.

It's vastly different, yes, but there are also design decisions that make no sense at other than to make development on it harder.

I'll give you that one, I was edgy on using XNA. But since this isn't a PC, and very few games actually run at the resolution of 1920x1080, 256mb of video memory is MORE than enough. Shared memory will always run slower than dedicated memory as well.

256mb of memory is a pretty strong amount when you consider it's not being used for much besides gaming.

 

[Russia208]

This question is incredibly closed-minded.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Apparently the Sony consoles are notoriously hard to program for and a lot of developers can't be bothered taking the extra time to squeeze the most out of them.

If you ask me most Dreamcast games visually shat on the earlier PS2 games. It wasn't until a couple of generations of games that developers got the hang of programming for it and then you really noticed the difference.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Um... question.

Who cares?

Seriously... we're talking about MINOR differences in graphics and load times being measured in the SECONDS or less. I remember when Oblivion came out and people were comparing screen shots for that... and even with both side by side... people still couldn't decide which was better looking. I think that should've ended this line of discussion right there.

We're not talking NES vs. SNES here. The level of differences is so minute and wavering (sometimes better on one, sometimes better on the other) at this point that bickering over which is better is a waste of time. Games are games. Play the system that has what you want and end the fanboy bullcrap.

End of topic.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Valve didn't port the orange box it was done by EA, same for left 4 dead as well

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169142

 

[TheGhostOfSin]

This question is incredibly closed-minded.

Not really, it's very widely accepted that cross-platform games generally look and perform slightly better on 360.

 

[Apocalypse Tank]

NOTE: This is not a fan war.

Why is it that on multi platform games; Xbox 360 looks and runs better that PS3?
I had thought the PS3 was meant to be more powerful than 360, but this does not appear to be the case.
Many reviews that i read comment that the game looks slightly better and runs smoother on the 360 than PS3... Anyone know why (or am i completely wrong)?

no matter how this is going to turn out
its going to be a war

 

[tehuberer]

better games and your mind id being brain washed in to thinking that ps3 had better graphics then 360 but after you get to a certen point it all looks that same

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

better games and your mind id being brain washed in to thinking that ps3 had better graphics then 360 but after you get to a certen point it all looks that same

People who use Lolcats as Avatars are not allowed to have opinions.

Does that rule apply to those with Zero Punctuation avatars as well? (exept for the simple demon thing, I'm talking about random pics from the reviews)

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Stupid lolcats and their cheezburgers, no u cant haz!

You know what I say to lolcats? This [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Epic_fail]

Now what were we talking about? Right, 360 and PS3. Remarkable how little flame war there's been.