Snake bites sony

[Combine Hybrid]

Even if MGS4 comes to the 360, Kojima is right in ONE thing. The game will have to be watered down. I'm not gonna disagree with that.

I don't think Kojima would want to bother changing the entire game just to fit in the 360 hardware...

 

[VirusType2]

Even if MGS4 comes to the 360, Kojima is right in ONE thing. The game will have to be watered down. I'm not gonna disagree with that.

I don't think Kojima would want to bother changing the entire game just to fit in the 360 hardware...

But the 360 is more powerful.

Actually, he said something along the lines of, "the 360 could just have easily been the platform for our game, as well as the PC, but we wanted to be one of the first to make a game for the new Playstion."

At least thats what I read. I did hear something about a DVD theatre, and TV, but it's just PR to sell the system he is making a game for.

There is no way you can convince me that the PS3 is more powerful. Some multi-platform games are significantly better on the 360.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

The problem is Blue Ray. I don't know if he was bullshitting but he said BD is not enough for MGS4. (that probably means we have more than 10 hours worth cutscenes...)

 

[rAdIOhEaD]

The problem is Blue Ray. I don't know if he was bullshitting but he said BD is not enough for MGS4. (that probably means we have more than 10 hours worth cutscenes...)

Nothing is set on stone! everything can happen!, you see? 360 fanboys analogy right there, nothing can't beat that analogy, not even Kojima at the SONY PS3 conference...

 

[Tarkus]

But the 360 is more powerful.

Actually, he said something along the lines of, "the 360 could just have easily been the platform for our game, as well as the PC, but we wanted to be one of the first to make a game for the new Playstion."

At least thats what I read. I did hear something about a DVD theatre, and TV, but it's just PR to sell the system he is making a game for.

There is no way you can convince me that the PS3 is more powerful. Some multi-platform games are significantly better on the 360.

That's probably because it's easier to make games for the X360. But still, I wish they ported MGS4 for the X360 because I really really want to play it, but I rather not spend 600? on a PS3 for it...actually, I won't spend any money on another console, only games

 

[Warbie]

Expensive though.

Worked out cheaper than the pc I was going to buy. They'll almost certainly last a whole lot longer too.

 

[VirusType2]

Worked out cheaper than the pc I was going to buy. They'll almost certainly last a whole lot longer too.

Hardware-wise it won't require upgrades (unless you want eye-toys and rumble controllers, etc.)

I guess, but it's not safe to say how reliable it is yet since it hasn't been out long enough to tell.


With the consoles, you can buy a game 5 years after the system comes out, and it still runs great, but with a PC, generally you just have the past library of games that run great, and brand new games progressively get harder to run for it.

I guess that sums it up.

 

[-Psy-]

The problem is Blue Ray. I don't know if he was bullshitting but he said BD is not enough for MGS4. (that probably means we have more than 10 hours worth cutscenes...)

Blu-ray...meh. Compression FTW!

 

[Gargantou]

Combine Hybrid, that'd be 10 hour of FMV cutscenes then.

 

[VirusType2]

Nothing is set on stone! everything can happen!, you see? 360 fanboys analogy right there, nothing can't beat that analogy, not even Kojima at the SONY PS3 conference...

Teh only fanboy in here is obviously you. Now stop badgering everybody.

Everyone else just wants to play the game for their 360/PC, or doesn't want to buy a PS3.

 

[rAdIOhEaD]

Teh only fanboy in here is obviously you. Now stop badgering everybody.

Everyone else just wants to play the game for their 360/PC, or doesn't want to buy a PS3.

Funny, because you just said otherwise a few posts back...

and I don't mind the game coming to 360, as long as I can play it, what I find funny is constant rumors of an imminent 360 port, even after Kojima didn't announce a port at E3, they won't announce something like this at TGS, no one has a 360 in Japan, the time for doing was at E3.
Like I said, good luck with your quest, but let's wait for official confirmation, more likely after the PS3's version is released. This year's announcement chance just passed.

 

[VirusType2]

Funny, because you just said otherwise a few posts back...

You are beginning to annoy me. WTF are you talking about? Maybe you put words in my mouth and I didn't bother to correct every stupid thing you say.

 

[-Psy-]

There is no love for Virus.

 

[VirusType2]

Funny, because you just said otherwise a few posts back...

and I don't mind the game coming to 360, as long as I can play it, what I find funny is constant rumors of an imminent 360 port, even after Kojima didn't announce a port at E3, they won't announce something like this at TGS, no one has a 360 in Japan, the time for doing was at E3.
Like I said, good luck with your quest, but let's wait for official confirmation, more likely after the PS3's version is released. This year's announcement chance just passed.

There were rumors of PS3 doing all kinds of things it can't do also, and they wash away after a while. Some people aren't up to the minute, so be prepared for more posts about this at a later date.


My quest right now is to kill boredom while I download stuff. :afro:

There is no love for Virus.

Comes with the territory.

 

[dream431ca]

But the 360 is more powerful.



There is no way you can convince me that the PS3 is more powerful. Some multi-platform games are significantly better on the 360.

I'm sorry to make you look bad, but this will probably convince you:

I been holding off on this for a while, (well to be honest I did post this in one of the threads where someone said that a quad core CPU would slaughter the Cell when it come out). Anyway it is offically benchmarked that the following comparison has been made for 2xWoodcrest quad and Dual Blade Cell.

The results where:

Quote:
IBM just published a paper about a financial app on Cell, their end result was a Dual Cell blade beating a dual Xeon (Woodcrest, quad core) by 11X on single precision, 3X on double precision.
Thanks to Adex on Beyond3d for this one:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread...=36058&page=11

(more details and great discussion on the seeming impossibility of these results on beyond3d and why the Cell is just that much faster).

Just wanted to add this quote to see the impact of this test:

Quote:
What its essentially saying is that a single SPU is 50% faster than a 3Ghz Core2 at DP FLOPS despite the fact that the Core 2 has about 4-5x higher theoretical peak and a similar transistor count advantage. Sounds a bit ludicrous to me.
Just goes to show that Cell = can get to its theoretical peak, X86 is lucky to get even half its theoretical peak.

Ok now what the hell has this to do with the Cell and the PS3 its a blade comparison you idiot Terra? (you may very well post, but I am prempting you ahah!)

Ok the blade is exactly the same as your Cell in your PS3 except that its 1xCell instead of 2xCell and your PS3 Cell also has one redundant SPU and one locked for the OS.

Sooooo taking in mind that single percision is the most important we will look at this first.

This means that optimised code for the Cell PS3 > Optimised code for 2xquad CPU by about 4 or 5 single percision.

If you half 11, you get about 5 maybe 6, now take off the (2) SPU's and your down to about 4-5 probably closer to 4.

So your Cell processor for optimised code (including games) will still be better than optimised code for 2xQuad set up.

However most games are not optimised for a particular PC CPU's due to the fact that games need to be compatible on previous cores i.e. from single core, double core, to quad etc. This means that while first party game and physics will allways be optimised for the PS3 (especally later on in life cycle) your PC cannot do the same. Meaning that the 4x greater will become maginatudes greater (twice, three times the amount????).

Most suprising at all but the least relevant if we follow my logic above even in double percision 1 Cell is about the same or `1.5 times faster than a 2xQuad core.

THUS CELL PS3 = AT LEAST 4x speed in single percision over 2xQuads and with no optimisation (to the same degree as Cell anyway) the gap will be even more apparant.

That means your probably looking at something like 4xQuad to 6xQuad to equal the speed that Cell is capable of processing games.

Which finally means that Cell is going to be allot stronger than your average PC for the next couple of years at least!!!

Xbox 360 has chips close to that of PC's so...ya. :E

 

[Gargantou]

The question is however, how easy that is to take advantage off, I've talked to devs at Pandemic Studios, currently working on Mercenaries 2 for the 360 and PS3, he said that whilst the PS3 has more power than the 360, its far harder to make full use of it, due to the quite different architecture.

 

[VirusType2]

I'm sorry to make you look bad, but this will probably convince you:



Xbox 360 has chips close to that of PC's so...ya.

Yea well, go figure. IBM sells the Cell chips. I'm sure they would go into great length about how great they are, even if they suck, using selective testing and unique circumstances.

Regardless, the 360 has a more powerful graphics processor, more RAM available, and has an easy to use and readily available toolset to make the games, along with an established learning curve.


So, what were you saying? Hate to make ya look bad.


You are talking about some persons guesses. And it's not even the same version of the Cell. Different architecture.


I'm talking about game reviews.

Call of Duty 3.

The Darkness.

and probably other games that run better on the 360, I wasn't really paying that much attention to some of these games. I haven't really seen many games for the new consoles worth buying yet.

Xbox 360 has chips close to that of PC's so...ya.

That sounds like you just made that up one day, and truly believe it.

 

[Que-Ever]

aha.

 

[dream431ca]

The question is however, how easy that is to take advantage off, I've talked to devs at Pandemic Studios, currently working on Mercenaries 2 for the 360 and PS3, he said that whilst the PS3 has more power than the 360, its far harder to make full use of it, due to the quite different architecture.

And that is exactly way multiplatform games need some extra time on the PS3 to get developed. Look at Dirt for example. It came out for the 360 first. In September, it will be out on PS3. The developer said it looks fantastic compared to the 360 version. I'll post where you can watch an interview. (click on Dirt Interview 2)

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/cmr07/media.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs&tag=tabs;videos

 

[Asus]

The CPU in the PS3 (Cell) is more powerful than the Xb360's. And can have longer draw distances in game. But the XB360 has a better GPU.

 

[VirusType2]

More games that are better on the 360.

the 360 version had "sharper textures on the character models in the close-up shots shown between plays." In comparing this year's games, 1UP simply stated that "All-Pro Football 2K8 definitely runs better on Xbox 360."

Madden NFL 08 and NCAA Football 2008 and 2K Sports' All-Pro Football 2K8 -- will run at 60 frames per second on the Xbox 360 and 30 frames per second on the PS3.

"its becoming a trend where 360 has better framerates"


I mean, we aren't talking 2 or 3 FPS, we are talking 30.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=360+PS3+games+run+better+on+&btnG=Search

 

[dream431ca]

Yea well, go figure. IBM sells the Cell chips. I'm sure they would go into great length about how great they are, even if they suck, using selective testing and unique circumstances.

Regardless, the 360 has a more powerful graphics processor, more RAM available, and has an easy to use and readily available toolset to make the games, along with an established learning curve.


So, what were you saying? Hate to make ya look bad.


You are talking about some persons guesses. And it's not even the same version of the Cell. Different architecture.

First off, can you find me a spec sheet that describes the 360's graphics chip, because I can't find one anywhere.

Second, it's true the 360 has more RAM...one one place. The 360 has 512MB of ram in one bunch for the CPU's and GPU to share, while the PS3 has 2, 256MB of RAM for both the GPU and the Cell. Because the 360 has shared memory, and depending on what game you are playing, sometimes the 360 has more RAM, other times it doesn't (for a specific component).

Yes, it is easier to make game on the 360, but as time goes by, it will be just as easy with the PS3.

And it's not a different architecture of the Cell.

More games that are faster on the 360.

"its becoming a trend where 360 has better framerates"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=360+PS3+games+run+better+on+&btnG=Search

I'm sorry to make you look bad again, but Madden 2008 will run at 60FPS on PS3 as well. :E

Kendall Boyd, one of the lead developer and producer of NCAA 08 on nex gen consoles has confirmed in a interview that Madden 08 will run at 60 fps.

And once again you can look at my post before and listen to the interview on Dirt for the PS3.

Oh ya, and UT3 will run better as well, and contain user mods and content (which 360 cannot do due to the restrictions of Xbox live.) :thumbs:

http://www.n4g.com/tech/News-51800.aspx

 

[Asus]

I'd have to find a link for exact specs but the PS3's GPU is based on the 7800 from Nvidia (on the PC the 7900 came next and then the 8800 DX10 series). ATI's new PC DX10 card is based on the XB360's unified shader GPU (without DX10). The generations we are talking about are completely different.

Looking at the PS3 and Xb360 overall, they work differently but come up with fairly similar game experiences. This discussion isn't on topic.

 

[VirusType2]

'm sorry to make you look bad again

D:

Sorry, again, to make you look bad, again ... again, but:


8 cross platform games tested.

Gamespot: Xbox 360 games look better than PS3 ports (for now)

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/06/gamespot-xbox-360-games-look-better-than-ps3-ports-for-now/


Contrary to popular belief, I can't actually see the future, I can only see the past. You see, history repeats itself.


The 360 and PS3 and Wii will improve graphically over time, everybody knows this. The PS3 has untapped potential? Well, that's just a waste. Potential is just potential.

 

[dream431ca]

Sorry, again, to make you look bad, again ... again, but:


8 cross platform games tested. All have better graphics on the 360.

At least for now, 360 is more powerful.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/06/gamespot-xbox-360-games-look-better-than-ps3-ports-for-now/


Contrary to popular belief, I can't actually see the future, I can only see the past. History repeats itself.


The 360 and PS3 and Wii will improve graphically over time, everybody knows this. The PS3 has untapped potential? Well, that's just a waste. Potential is just potential.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/06/gamespot-xbox-360-games-look-better-than-ps3-ports-for-now/

Power of the system really has nothing to do with it. It's the time and money needed to produce multiplatform games. If companies don't want to invest in extra time to make a game run well on a different platform, then obviously the game will not look as good. The Xbox 360 is not more powerful, I already proved that to you. It's the developers that need to learn how the PS3 works to get quality multiplatform games. Eventually, they will.

 

[Gargantou]

But lets be honest, when MOST people buy a console, they want results NOW, they want to see their 'awsome console' prove its awsomeness NOW, not later.

Note I'm saying most, i.e. general populace, not everyone.

 

[VirusType2]

Power of the system really has nothing to do with it. It's the time and money needed to produce multiplatform games. If companies don't want to invest in extra time to make a game run well on a different platform, then obviously the game will not look as good. The Xbox 360 is not more powerful, I already proved that to you. It's the developers that need to learn how the PS3 works to get quality multiplatform games. Eventually, they will.

The PS3 is not more powerful, I have already proved that to you as well.

In fact, I have proved that the graphics are better on the 360 from side by side comparisons of 8 games, and the framerates are better in some of these multi-platform titles.


See, the thing for me is that by the time PS3 games get up to speed and use the full power of the system, the GPU will be horribly out dated.


Besides, none of these consoles will ever reach their full potential.

So far you've got a limited amount of games for the PS3, and they are better on the 360.

If you want to buy something that will be great later, may I suggest a bottle of wine?

 

[dream431ca]

The PS3 is not more powerful, I have already proved that to you as well.

In fact, I have proved that the graphics are better on the 360 from side by side comparisons of 8 games, and the framerates are better in some of these multi-platform titles.


See, the thing for me is that by the time PS3 games get up to speed and use the full power of the system, the GPU will be horribly out dated.


Besides, none of these consoles will ever reach their full potential.

So far you've got a limited amount of games for the PS3, and they are better on the 360.

If you want to buy something that will be great later, may I suggest a bottle of wine?

You gave me proof? All you gave me was some multiplatform games that run better on 360 because the developers are to lazy to make the game decent on the PS3. That justifies poor developers.

The 360 has already reached it's max in graphics. You will see no better looking games on the 360. Gears of War is the best you will see.

As for the PS3, they won't achieve the maximum for many years. But that being said, Heavenly Sword looks much better than Gears of War and it's a first generation game on the PS3.

As for the GPU, BOTH the 360 and PS3's GPU's are outdated compared to whats out now.

 

[Combine Hybrid]

Why is everyone trying to compare games to Gears? Gears does not prove Xbox360's hardware limit (even though, Cliff keep says his game uses up 360's limit...). But the hardware analysts says otherwise.

 

[VirusType2]

You gave me proof? All you gave me was some multiplatform games that run better on 360 because the developers are to lazy to make the game decent on the PS3. That justifies poor developers.

The 360 has already reached it's max in graphics. You will see no better looking games on the 360. Gears of War is the best you will see.

As for the PS3, they won't achieve the maximum for many years. But that being said, Heavenly Sword looks much better than Gears of War and it's a first generation game on the PS3.

As for the GPU, BOTH the 360 and PS3's GPU's are outdated compared to whats out now.

Why in the heavens would developers not do their best with the hardware they have to make the game look at least as good as the 360?

I gave proof, your post is speculation, opinion, and hyperbole.

If the developers are lazy, then why weren't they lazy when they made the 360 version better?

You are saying that 8 different developers all decided to get lazy just to make PS3 games, then go back to doing their best on other systems?

The 360 has not reached it's max in graphics. That is absolute nonsense.

The 360 has been out about a year. It's still new as well. The PS2 is still making strides in graphic improvment, and it's like 10 years old with a shitty little chip.

If you really want to argue that the CPU is tapped out, which it isn't, then realize that improvements are not always from harnessing the power of the chips.

It's not only the processing power, but programing tools and techniques that improve over the years as well, not to mention the ongoing challenge of improving code to be more efficient.

Remember when bump mapping was a new thing? Real-time Shadows? Etc. We should see much more, besides beads of sweat on athletes and realistic boob physics, coming soon.

 

[Asus]

Before you post think, is this on topic?

 

[Stigmata]

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?cpage=1

There's your proof, dream431ca. From what I've gathered through reading it nearly a dozen times over the past year and a half:

• the PS3 and 360 are about equal in terms of real-world, attainable CPU performance
• the PS3 comes out on top in terms of raw storage capacity, but loses on data transfer
• the 360 beats out the PS3 in terms of GPU performance, both theoretical and real-world
• the 360 also beats out the PS3 in terms of memory performance and general system efficiency

Given three to four years, a game on PS3 might be more technically impressive than one on 360, but development companies that have the skill, time, and money to dedicate to that kind of project are few and far between - even fewer given the installed base of the PS3 and the difficulty of developing cross-platform games.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled forum.

 

[-Psy-]

The PS3 is too complicated. Dev's couldn't be bothered with it.

The 360 on the other hand, is not to dissimilar to a PC. Dev's are pretty familiar with the PC platform so therefore the 360 is the platform of choice.

 

[Kyorisu]

Okay MS fanboys.

1. Games ported to the PS3 from X360 will look worse and run worse and vice versa.
2. The PS2 was also very complicated devs learned how to use it over time.
3. Keep on paying your Xbox live subscription like a good little pet.

 

[Gargantou]

Okay Sony fanboys.
1. The PS3 cant really be compared in complexity to the PS2, its far more complex, atleast according to the devs at Pandemic(Search on their forums you will find their posts stating this).
2. Whilst the theoretical power of the PS3 might be higher, its far easier to get better juice out of the 360(Use the same source as above, the lead devs at Pandemic on the forums)

Note: I'm not saying the guys on Pandemic are totally reliable but they did games for both the XB1 and PS2, and now they're doing games for both the PS3 and XB360.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

Well, as most tend to point on in this discussion, Kozuki is the one with final say. So, regardless of what that arrogant turd Kojima has to say, MGS4 is probably going to end up going across platforms because the PS3 user base currently sucks compared to the XBox360s.

What is so hard to understand here...money talks. Konami stands to make more money on this game for the XBox than it currently does on the PS3. And, since it's coming out sooner rather than later, Konami would be incredibly foolish to ignore the profit potential for something as silly as "history" or "loyalty". This is why Sony continues to lose exclusives...don't believe that Konami won't do the same to improve their bottom line.

This is not fanboyism nor does it have anything to do with the percieved marginal hardware advantage the PS3 owns(which in real world applications is ZERO)....this is logic.

 

[VictimOfScience]

It will likely appear on the 360 eventually, but not for quite some time after the PS3 version I think.

Oh, and this thread should be renamed, "Snake May Have To Take Additional Steps Toward Biting Sony."

 

[Gargantou]

No, "Venomous Snake May Have To Take Additional Steps Toward Biting Sony."!

 

[VictimOfScience]

No, "Venomous Snake May Have To Take Additional Steps Toward Biting Sony."!

True, all that Diazepam and Nicotine is really adding up...not to mention Foxdie.

 

[Letters]

"During its E3 2007 conference, Sony confirmed to its fans exactly what they wanted to hear: Metal Gear Solid 4 is still exclusive to the PlayStation 3."

Why the hell do people care if a game is exclusive to a system? Shouldn't the only thing you care about be if you can play it on what you have or not?