MadFerIt Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) Perhaps the biggest bombshell we've learned in the world of PS3 development right now is that many (if not most) games are simply running in 720p - not the ambitious, bleeding edge 1080p "Full HD" standard that Sony had us so excited about. And certainly, not two of them stuck together for a ludicrous 32:9 double-1080p. And this is a key point; while it's clearly struggling to achieve Full HD without heavy compromises, something that PS3 does better than Xbox 360, most straightforwardly, is 'more stuff simultaneously'. An impressive list of simultaneous, wonderfully shaded, dynamic visual effects was evident, but PS3 was also able to throw around tonnes of geometry in terms of realtime 'explosion' calculation - and convincingly affect dozens of objects all at the same time.The development source concurs: "Unlike Xbox and PS2, where Xbox had a host of built-in effects that were a generation ahead of PS2, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are same-generation machines. One doesn't have additional effects over the other - 360 can do the same effects, just not as many of them simultaneously and with less geometry [because of the speed difference], but memory bottlenecks can kill part of the PS3 speed advantage anyway... the overall visual difference it makes will depend a lot on the developer's skill, and how much time and money the publisher spends on a game." The hands-on evidence is beginning to mount up. We're talking about a machine barely superior to Xbox 360 - not by any significant margin. It's certainly obvious this machine is not "twice" as powerful as 360, let alone a generational leap ahead. But the gap could become bigger: "Realistically, as libraries and experience with both machines grow, I think the PS3 will start showing things the 360 will choke at," offers the source. "But Sony will have to make available to us libraries and new routines for that to happen - something they've been severely lacking at so far." We'd previously seen PlayStation 3 in "realtime" action in three demonstrations - the stunning Metal Gear Solid 4 trailer taken into a simulation to show off game engine and graphics, Sonic the Hedgehog's realtime demo at TGS, and also a realtime demo of Sega's Fifth Phantom Saga, also at TGS (all available to watch below). Based on what we've now played for ourselves, we can answer a question we all asked back at E3 2005. Does PS3 really look like the Killzone trailer? No way. Does it look like Metal Gear Solid 4? Sure, near enough, although now that it's on near-final hardware, things just need a little polishing to look as complete as what was shown by Kojima-san in September. Remember the demo where Cell combined satellite images with landscape maps to produce awesome Google Earth-on-steroids scenes at hi-def 60fps? In our first hands-on we're moving in a PS3 game world that's a far cry from the "internal sphere" technique for skies and clouds in past-generation games. A stunning real world we're looking at - this time using RSX meat unlike Phil Harrison's demo nine months ago - gave us some clues about how the experience of freedom in a series like GTA could be enhanced in ways we've just not seen before - not with this sort of impact - and that's before any social simulation and AI is thrown in. Source: http://games.kikizo.com/news/200602/065_p1.asp Ok time for a quick opinion on the article.. I think it's a far more realistic look on the PS3 hardware then what we've seen before.. The system certainly isn't "Killzone 2 Trailer" level but things like the MGS 4 trailer are far better representation of what the hardware is capable of. Now comparing it to the 360 is a bit difficult.. This article seems to suggest there is a noticeable difference between the two (and launch titles for the PS3 looking visually on the level of the great looking present/future 360 titles). Also the launch date seems to be Summer for Japan simply because they are running behind on schedule. It's much better that they don't rush things so this isn't a bad thing (though they should really stop saying it's still a Spring release). Also I just may buy the PS3 so it's better it comes out near Winter'06 so I actually have the cash ;). Apologies for any wacky grammar/spelling (well more then usual), not feeling very well so can't really help it lol. Also hopefully I picked enough pro/con quotes.. I'm trying to be balanced here lol!! But it's difficult sometimes. Edited February 11, 2006 by MadFerIt2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thermal+paste Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 your pc will give you better gaming performance, stick with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chroniq Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 come on .. how can u be disapointed? it really makes no sense. ps3 is just as great as the xbox .. the diffrences are subtle for the end user experience .. nothing any of us should worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Anthony Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 What are they talking about they say it can achieve that MSG4 Trailer graphics but can't do the Killzone ones. They look the same thing to me. Also I am going to let the games prove Sony wrong, not writers with the final Dev Kit ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majortom1981 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I find it funy they are doing games on a harddrive and not a blueray drive. They could do all these games then burn it to blue ray and have it take ages to load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 your pc will give you better gaming performance, stick with that Mine won't and a PS3 will be cheaper than buying the requisite hardware to get an equivalent or better gaming experience on my PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majortom1981 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 lightspeed we dont know that. What if the ps3 is $700 plus dollars? I can by a top of the line video card for that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadFerIt Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 lightspeed we dont know that. What if the ps3 is $700 plus dollars? I can by a top of the line video card for that much. Chances are it isn't going to be that expensive. Whether or not it's more expensive then the 360 (premium) is still a question though. But they'll take a huge loss on the hardware before making it $700+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted February 11, 2006 Veteran Share Posted February 11, 2006 I have no doubts that the PS3 will be powerful. I just want to know the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyko_x Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) the article got me excited as things look promising for the ps3 but that article is pretty confusing it says the trailer we saw of mgs4 is pretty accurate of what we're actually gonna get (and there still time to improve it) and yet the article says that the ps3 is a small jump over the xbox 360. and then it says that the "killing day" game is more like what the ps3 can do. first off mgs4 looks absolutely stunning compared to xbox 360 games and I doubted that we would get anything close to that. secondly that killing day game looks like crap. how can you say the ps3s graphics will be like killing day and at the same time like mgs4??? edit: look at these quotes "it's beautiful, almost like they promised this sort of scene would be...If only the machine could generate a cool passing breeze in the room, this would be totally the real deal" ...ok awesome because sony promised A LOT "We're talking about a machine barely superior to Xbox 360 - not by any significant margin" ...wtf? "Tekken 6 is an example of early thirdparty support that outweighs Xbox 360 by a fair margin" ...ummm what???? Edited February 11, 2006 by psyko_x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadFerIt Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 the article got me excited as things look promising for the ps3 but that article is pretty confusing it says the trailer we saw of mgs4 is pretty accurate of what we're actually gonna get (and there still time to improve it) and yet the article says that the ps3 is a small jump over the xbox 360. and then it says that the "killing day" game is more like what the ps3 can do. first off mgs4 looks absolutely stunning compared to xbox 360 games and I doubted that we would get anything close to that. secondly that killing day game looks like crap. how can you say the ps3s graphics will be like killing day and at the same time like mgs4??? Well I think it's mean't in terms of the worst looking games to the best looking. I've watched the video for Killing Day (even though it isn't in realtime), and it isn't bad. The character models are very impressive. Think of games like Killing Day as the worst looking (of course it's all dependent on the developer.. We'll certainly see PS3 titles that look worse then Killing Day). Also MGS4 does look "amazing". There's no doubt about that. However to say it is leaps and bounds above Xbox360 is untrue. Gears of War is certainly on the same level as MGS4 (though the look of both games is drasticly different, so it's hard to compare) visually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadFerIt Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) *Oopps double posted sorry. Edited February 11, 2006 by MadFerIt2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yankee lion Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 That was like 4.5 pages of fluff. More speculation, yay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadFerIt Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 That was like 4.5 pages of fluff. More speculation, yay. Ah it was from actual PS3 developers.. So I can't understand why it's all "fluff". It's certainly not anti-PS3.. It definetly says it isn't as powerful as it was originally made out to be, but it still says it is superior to the 360 visually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 well i still think the xbox 360 is more powerfull since it had 3x cores with 2 threads Per/C and the PS3 has only 1 procceser with 7SPEs witch are almost like exstrea threads that cna be done but thats only still 1 whole procceser. now i will post some stuff froma interview from aTI about the Xbox bandwidth and the unifead shader system witch will explian really how it is better then what we have now on PC and also why i think the PS3 will fail with alot of things Let’s talk about the unified shader architecture. First, I’d like to know about its performance. I’m pretty sure a unified shader architecture makes things easier for developers, but is a unified shader pipeline as good (performance wise) as the current architecture seen in PC parts, that is, separated pixel and vertex processing units. Bob Feldstein: The Unified Shader Architecture actually improves overall performance. To understand why, we need to look at what is unified. In current architectures there are separate shader mechanisms with different instruction sets and different caching mechanisms. What ATI found is that, in real applications, one set of shaders, or the other, is often idle because either pixel or vertex processing dominates in a bursty manner. To handle the bursts, you need to build a lot of parallel shader resources – even though they will be idle as processing transitions from pixels to vertex. The Unified Shaders combines the instruction sets, creates the right caching mechanisms and with a lot of other complication allows all the shader processors to be used for any problem. Thus, when pixel processing dominates, we can use all 48 shaders for pixel processing. When vertex processing dominates, we can use the 48 shaders for vertices. When the workload is some vertex and some pixel processing, we can mix the shader resources between the two programs. http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/1458/T...box-360-GPU/p2/ I think it exsplians itself tho that the Xbox360s shader system is a better way witch in my mind could mean the Xbox 360 realyl could do more then the 360 despite what the article says about it not being able to do as many effects or certian effects the PS3 can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yankee lion Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Ah it was from actual PS3 developers.. So I can't understand why it's all "fluff". It's certainly not anti-PS3.. It definetly says it isn't as powerful as it was originally made out to be, but it still says it is superior to the 360 visually. It's just restating stuff we already know, that's all. Some of it might not even be true because half the article is based on a anon. dev. I'm just saying people should take this with a grain of salt like everything else PS3 related thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyko_x Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 notuptome2004 you're free to your own opinion but you should realize that neither you nor anyone else on neowin understands the cell processor. just because you read the backpage news, press releases, or gamespot along with the rest of us doesn't mean you understand it's architecture and how it really works. i'm sure you didn't read a book or take a class in college studying it. i'm not trying to be a prick i'm just saying that you're in the same boat as the rest of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 notuptome2004 you're free to your own opinion but you should realize that neither you nor anyone else on neowin understands the cell processor. just because you read the backpage news, press releases, or gamespot along with the rest of us doesn't mean you understand it's architecture and how it really works. i'm sure you didn't read a book or take a class in college studying it. i'm not trying to be a prick i'm just saying that you're in the same boat as the rest of us does not matter how it works it is how devlopers use it but the fact is ther limted to 1 proccesser and sure they have 7SPEs that share that 1 procceser thus they have to euqale out balance out load and alredy some DEV, sutch as john carmak have siad it is a wast of time in a few short words to use the SPEs they are usless in his eyes and he knows programming. he also stated the Xbox 360 is betetr hardware to program for andfaster if i remeber right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magik Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 does not matter how it works it is how devlopers use it but the fact is ther limted to 1 proccesser and sure they have 7SPEs that share that 1 procceser thus they have to euqale out balance out load and alredy some DEV, sutch as john carmak have siad it is a wast of time in a few short words to use the SPEs they are usless in his eyes and he knows programming. he also stated the Xbox 360 is betetr hardware to program for andfaster if i remeber right. John Carmack's interviews: Buzzscope, GameSpy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotdog666al Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Those graphics are INSANE. They need to ditch that controller design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebeech Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 nice read, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhav Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Sounds like a bunch of shat to me. Everything they've said could be derived from information we've already got and seen. They've just padded it out. Why would devs talk to such an unknown, crappy site as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Seetheworldsecond Subscriber¹ Posted February 11, 2006 Subscriber¹ Share Posted February 11, 2006 After reading all that Im just more excited on buying my PS3 when it comes out...hmm lil disapointing tho when they said it isnt no kill zone.But Metal gear solid was very nice! so Im not very disapointed after I read that anymore :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scazza Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 hmm lil disapointing tho when they said it isnt no kill zone.But Metal gear solid was very nice! so Im not very disapointed after I read that anymore :p well they say it isnt at the killzone 2 trailer graphical stage, but i bet you we will see those sort of graphics. compare the graphics at the release of the PS2 to the graphics of games a year or two years down the line. Once the developers have got used to it all we will only see better visuals :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaPrime Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I really hope there are more good EyeToy games like AntiGrav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts