PS3 VS XBOX 360 analysis

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

14th-January-2006, 02:13
Kazekage Gaara

Quote:

Originally Posted by malice2501

Oh, and there hasnt been a game yet to fill up an entire 8GB dvd. So, um.... yeah....

God of War was at around 7.8 gb and that game was AWESOME :drool:
14th-January-2006, 02:15
GundamGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

Answering questions in order. Each console has its own texture compression etc for files that it will read normally. Next, the RSX can render live satellite footage in realtime. Next, perhaps you think im saying every game for PS3 will be 25 gigs? No that is not the case, however, im sure you all would like to see a lot of environment interactivity in future games as well as more storyline scenes in RPGs not to mention more voices, larger and higher quality sound tracks. Take as an example Star Ocean 3. The game is almost 9 gigs. But that is just an RPG with no environment interactivity, voices for mostly just main characters and a roughly standard sound track in every way. I have yet to see an RPG with the same quality graphics as say an FPS game and do you know why? Not because of limitations in budget or time but mostly because of capacity.

Actuly it's mostly because of how much it would cost to make such a long game look as good as an FPS... Way to much to make a profit off of...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

Capcom, Konami, Square-Enix, KOEI or any other big company that makes games is willing to put forth the effort to make great games. For the level of interactivity proposed in MGS4 the disc space is a major requirement.

What is the level of interactivty in MGS4? How do you know that it's going to be that much more interactive then MGS3 or MGS2 or even MGS... all we have seen is a Polygon Demo... I mean what does that really show...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

Moving on though, due to the very low clipping distance in Doom 3 they were able to make character models and environment detail much higher. Take a look at Quake 4 and take another look at Doom 3 and you will notice the quality on character models and environment isnt quite the same though relatively close. And notice how most of Quake 4 is also dark in the more highly detailed areas. These games arent designed the same way something like Call of Duty 2 was. If Call of Duty 2 ran using the doom 3 engine surely most of us would be running to stores to upgrade our computers spending several hundred easily.

Not everyone is a graphics whore..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

And yes the cost of games might be going up in the later parts of next generation gaming but that is to be expected.

Why is that expected...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

Consoles arent going for 200$ anymore so obviously games wont be going for the usual for too much longer.

the Revoultion might go for less... acording to some devlpers reports on IGN

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

Last, the Nintendo Revolution isnt meant to compete with PS3 or XBOX 360.

That is only what Microsoft and Sony think, but it will Likely end up selling more, so if it helps them sleep at night...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

This is why it is called the REVOLUTION. It is meant to add new aspects to gaming and expand the known gaming experience to include more than your thumbs and index fingers. Virtual reality is close... so close you can smell it! Oh wait, that was the burger i had earlier...

Right, ok, exactly, but that does not mean it's not suppot to compete with the others.
14th-January-2006, 02:29
Suikie

If you took the time to read some articles perhaps these issues would not be foreign to you. In MGS 4 Hideo Kojima has designed a whole new gameplay engine that allows for major interactivity. If you stand behind a wall and an enemy desides to go on a shooting frenzy you better find a new wall soon or that wall wont protect you anymore. An explosion will blow up the ground and nearby walls. All actions you take will effect the gameplay. I cant quote anything because i read the article like 2 weeks ago but perhaps you should check out some of the stuff on gamespot.

As for the revolution, if you would read some articles you would know that nintendo isnt making the revolution to compete with PS3 or Sony. They arent trying to go for the greatest graphics or such. They have announced they do not intend to try to compete on system specs but merely for new ways to play games. Sure they have a competitive market but they arent trying to measure up to sony or microsoft's standards of super uber graphics.

If any of you care to look back on the history of video games you would realize the prices have been going up steadily over time. Nintendo games were 20-35$. SNES games were to 30-45. PSX games were 50 and rarely 55. PS2 games have been 40-60. Make note i am quoting prices on typical console generations not just those particular consoles. Taking into account inflation i expect SOME games to reach 70$ in the next generation but not all. It is very likely that most games for the next generation consoles will remain around 50-60$ but the really big titles will cost more probably towards the middle or end of this generation of games.

And as far as not all people being graphics whores, that was in response to a previous arguement. I myself prefer classic style games over most of the newer graphically superior yet gameplay inferior titles.
14th-January-2006, 02:42
GundamGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

If you took the time to read some articles perhaps these issues would not be foreign to you. In MGS 4 Hideo Kojima has designed a whole new gameplay engine that allows for major interactivity. If you stand behind a wall and an enemy desides to go on a shooting frenzy you better find a new wall soon or that wall wont protect you anymore. An explosion will blow up the ground and nearby walls. All actions you take will effect the gameplay. I cant quote anything because i read the article like 2 weeks ago but perhaps you should check out some of the stuff on gamespot.

Why do you assume im Ignoant of these things... BTW what does any of that have to do with Disk Space? It won't requite alot more disk space just more CPU power and RAM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

As for the revolution, if you would read some articles you would know that nintendo isnt making the revolution to compete with PS3 or Sony. They arent trying to go for the greatest graphics or such. They have announced they do not intend to try to compete on system specs but merely for new ways to play games. Sure they have a competitive market but they arent trying to measure up to sony or microsoft's standards of super uber graphics.

So Super Uber grapics is the deciding factor in teh console war... I thought it came down to Market Share... Which Nintendo is likely to do well in... BTW ( I know the Revolution is weak here you go asuming things again. ) But Nintendo never said they were not competing, they just are not trying to win in the same way... which is a smart move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

If any of you care to look back on the history of video games you would realize the prices have been going up steadily over time. Nintendo games were 20-35$. SNES games were to 30-45. PSX games were 50 and rarely 55. PS2 games have been 40-60. Make note i am quoting prices on typical console generations not just those particular consoles. Taking into account inflation i expect SOME games to reach 70$ in the next generation but not all. It is very likely that most games for the next generation consoles will remain around 50-60$ but the really big titles will cost more probably towards the middle or end of this generation of games.

I payed just about 50 for most new releases ever sence the SNES... so I have no Idea what yout talking about...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

And as far as not all people being graphics whores, that was in response to a previous arguement. I myself prefer classic style games over most of the newer graphically superior yet gameplay inferior titles.

I'll give you that.
14th-January-2006, 02:43
polobunny

Quote:

Originally Posted by BiggySmall

I think this thread is pointless until PS3 comes out. You cant analyze a system that isnt released yet
14th-January-2006, 03:03
malice2501

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rav.

God of War was at around 7.8 gb and that game was AWESOME :drool:

might have been 7.8 GB, but i dont see where all that space went. NG had better graphics and took less space. Bad programming if you ask me.

[[[Above statement is too damn true for its own good]]]
14th-January-2006, 03:18
GundamGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by malice2501

might have been 7.8 GB, but i dont see where all that space went. NG had better graphics and took less space. Bad programming if you ask me.

[[[Above statement is too damn true for its own good]]]

It likely was not compressed fully, and the disk might have alot of "Empty Space" that is used according to say a computer, but not filled with actual game data...
14th-January-2006, 06:48
DeputyDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dak'kon

When are you going to have 7 guys playing on one TV? Woah.

Actually the PS3 can output two signals at 1080p. So therefore, you can have 4 people playing on one TV at 1080p. Then another 4 on another tv. You can plug an 8th controller into a usb port. So there 8 players total. On 2 TVs. Both at 1080p.

just so you know.
14th-January-2006, 07:16
polobunny

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeputyDon --revised to fit polobunny standards of bad criticism

Actually the PS3 is supposed to output two signals at 1080p. So therefore, you could have 4 people playing on one TV at 1080p. Then maybe another 4 on another tv. You could plug an 8th controller into a usb port. So there could be 8 players total. On 2 TVs. Both at 1080p.

just so you know.

Just because Sony reps say something doesn't mean it'll be it. Remember the Killzone video? And the screens for Warhawk, MGS4, and Heavenly Sword? Real-time render LOLOLOLmyass. Sony reps spurted out that you could play with 2 TV's still at 120 fps each. Yeah right.

Once they show me someone pushing buttons and "real time rendering" i'm going to beleive them, until then, big lol.
14th-January-2006, 07:21
Tosca

yea too right I mean in the past Sony has had a very shady marketing approach, screens from fmvs being passed off as real-time rendering, emotion engine BS, they like to exaggerate too.
14th-January-2006, 07:22
polobunny

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tosca

yea too right I mean in the past Sony has had a very shady marketing approach, screens from fmvs being passed off as real-time rendering, emotion engine BS, they like to exaggerate too.

Exactly. Honestly, the only company not being too shady on their marketing approach is Nintendo.
Ha ok i'm joking, I think I should go to sleep...(:
14th-January-2006, 07:26
Suikie

To clarify, Greater levels of interactivity requires more disk space because you have to map the movements of each piece of debris, the reaction based on angle, distance etc etc all those math computations and extra graphics. Sure the math wont take too much space but the graphics for not only the act of the debris being blown up but also each individual piece of debris. I have experience in 3D and i know you cant just take one object and blow it up and have the physics react to each individual piece. Each piece must be broken up into its own object which would then require its own textures. This is what will take up so much space and whether you want to believe it or not it takes substantial disk space to do certain things like that.
14th-January-2006, 08:30
GundamGuy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suikie

To clarify, Greater levels of interactivity requires more disk space because you have to map the movements of each piece of debris, the reaction based on angle, distance etc etc all those math computations and extra graphics. Sure the math wont take too much space but the graphics for not only the act of the debris being blown up but also each individual piece of debris. I have experience in 3D and i know you cant just take one object and blow it up and have the physics react to each individual piece. Each piece must be broken up into its own object which would then require its own textures. This is what will take up so much space and whether you want to believe it or not it takes substantial disk space to do certain things like that.

First off, Im no fool myself.

Right ok, that alone is not going to take up that much space, and they either must have one hell of a buget and 4 or 5 years of development time, if you expect each individual piece from everything that explodes to have it's own high-res texture. It's more likely they will use a few textures on all the pieces and or just use the textures on the wall in the first place... I mean why go to all the trouble to change the look when something that is breaking apart should look like a broken piece of what it was to begin with. Either way they are not going to need many if anymore high-res textures to make the effect you discribe. This means of course that not alot of disk space will be needed to pull that off.... Less then 10 mb for sure. I would go as far as saying well under that... What is really needed is a good CPU and GPU to do all that math.... If you want to hype the PS3 over the X360 hype the CELL not BlueRay... which is just a catch for suckers.

Second did you happen to notice that while the moddels for the Characters in MGS4 were awsome... some of the broken wall's were well sub par to say the least... they looked like something off the PS2. The Rebar was bent in angles, and squared off, and some of the textures were well horible... If you focus on Snake or any of the other characters you would never notice... but look at the enviroment and you'll see that some parts of it need work...
14th-January-2006, 09:56
pkt-zer0

Interactivity is one thing that does NOT take much space, just effort. Simple action scripts, at most. You know, a point in space can be described by 3 coordinates. Grab a few of those, assign them a texture (another whopping 4 bytes, or so), and you've got one flat piece of environment. Repeat a few times, etc., you've got an object done. And then, it's some 4 or so coordinates to place it anywhere in a level, any number of times.

Also, mapping movements of exploding debris is not really a good idea, especially when it can be done with 50 or so lines of code and a bit of CPU speed. Animation is just movement of points, again, mostly, so that's still not much space. As for the debris having hi-res textures: what would the point in that be? To spend lots of money and manpower on something that will be on screen for a short time, and not that much visible either? Procedural textures are also your friends.

The RSX renders satellite footage realtime? Suuure. In Fable, they stated that you could go to the forest, chop down some trees, and build your own house to live in. You can't do that in the final game, of course.
14th-January-2006, 11:17
Suikie

First, the RSX was shown at E3 last year as they rendered satellite footage in real time. Second, im not talking about mapping the movements of the debris im talking about physics. Third, i have said it many times but you are not listening... The space isnt for graphics or such but for gameplay. When i buy an RPG i want a good long game not something i play for 20 hours and am done. I want something like FF7 where i can play for 60 hours and still not be satisfied whereas you get these halfbaked 10-20 hours RPGs these days and find yourself not even wanting to play again because it wasnt long enough etc. There are a lot of things the extra space can be used for. And of course we all know that BD-Roms probably wont even be used right away. When PS2 released tons of the games were still on CD! Stop arguing moot points.

The Cell processor in the PS3 will surely be revolutionary if it is actually what they plan it to be, however, since at the moment that doesnt appear to be the case the real things that set the PS3 apart from XBOX 360 are the GPU and BD-Rom. My point was that even with the same specs as XBOX 360 the BD-Rom would make the PS3 go much farther. You cant say all that space is unnecessary because we all know you dont create a system and immediately start using 100% of its potential. Graphics will get better over time and software developers will learn how best to utilize the system's hardware and therefor the extra space is the leeway they need to upgrade graphics and gameplay over the life of the console. The XBOX 360 doesnt have the same room for growth that the PS3 does.

Also, even if the cell processor is what they claim it to be, that wont make it too huge of an increase over the 360 because frankly the level of graphics we have achieved simply doesnt necessarily NEED that super powered processor. The limitation of the system would then be the RSX.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page