Crysis 2 PS3 'performs better than 360 version'


Recommended Posts

NO games this generation use incompressed textures. and they are not stored on disk as uncompressed either.

a single texture file for a single character uncompressed will be several, possibly well over 10 megabytes for high res textures. and a single character often has multiple textures. +layers for effects and such.

In order to fit textures in video memory, even on modern 1GB video cards, textures get compressed. And in order for the artist to have full control over how the final compressed texture looks like (i.e. not like ****) they compress them and store them in a compressed format that can be loaded directly into video memory. Without needing to use the GPU to decompress the texture without control over what the resulting quality is.

The PS3 has 256MB available video memory, due to it's design, the 360 can dedicate all of it's 512MB to video memory if it so desires/need.

The reason FF13 looked worse on the 360 was because Square compressed the textures extra to keep the game on one less disk, to save money, and because they didn't do as good a job on the 360 game engine.

Due to it's design the PS3 cannot really use the BL space to make games look prettier with higher res textures and such. It simply cannot use them. unless you make VERY VERY small levels, and unload and reload all resources between them.

There are certain technical limitations you just cannot get around, and they aren't that hard to understand either, if you've ever done any 3D or 2D work.

Also AudioBoxer, I believe you forgot to add an "IMHO" in that last post.

If you try and program the PS3 the traditional way you would a PC or Xbox360 (it similar design) you have a point.

However, the PS3 is not designed to work that way. That 256 MB significantly speed faster then PC / 360.

Also in pc/360 design your suppose to do the heavy graphics processing done by the gpu where the PS3 your suppose to use the Cell's spu and the gpu is more of an "output" vs the brunt of the graphics processing.

A lot of dev's were trying to develop for the ps3 like a pc and that's where the learning curve / lot of performance issues crypt in.

Another barrier (if you compare similiar programming langauges) PS3 language is a lot like assembly (very low level program you have to tell the hardware how to behave) where pc / xbox is higher level programing (tell it what you want it to do and let the complier handle the machine code / aspect for you). It's a greater leraning curve, but when optimized is very high performing.

Look at assembler programs running on modern desktops, the have poential to be ultra fast compared to higher level programming languages on the same system... again provided you have the skill to do it.

Since game engines are out now that are well optimized for the ps3, this allows dev's to program like a high level langauge (do X,Y,X) and the engine handles how it talks to the hardware.

Another Example (until they axed linux support ><) you can see how you can use the ps3 hardware for video editing / conversion (http://codecsys.fixstars.com/en/) and how a ps3 can use folding and process data at a much higher rate then pc's. (http://folding.stanford.edu/)

Note - I do think some of us reach the point of we agree to disagree.

If you want to beat up Sony for it's business decisions about removal of features PS2 BC, Linux on fat model, High prices preventing mass adoption until price drops, Cluttering up the streamlind XMB / mandatory new bar getting more comercial / ad, and I'd be more then happy to join you on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That 256 MB significantly speed faster then PC / 360.

Definitely ain't faster than PC RAM or GPU Ram, if we're talking decent parts. XDR hasn't even hit 1066MHz which I believe DDR3 is running at its minimum?

And the GPU is just basic GDDR3 ram which is sort of mainstream today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you try and program the PS3 the traditional way you would a PC or Xbox360 (it similar design) you have a point.

However, the PS3 is not designed to work that way. That 256 MB significantly speed faster then PC / 360.

Also in pc/360 design your suppose to do the heavy graphics processing done by the gpu where the PS3 your suppose to use the Cell's spu and the gpu is more of an "output" vs the brunt of the graphics processing.

A lot of dev's were trying to develop for the ps3 like a pc and that's where the learning curve / lot of performance issues crypt in.

Another barrier (if you compare similiar programming langauges) PS3 language is a lot like assembly (very low level program you have to tell the hardware how to behave) where pc / xbox is higher level programing (tell it what you want it to do and let the complier handle the machine code / aspect for you). It's a greater leraning curve, but when optimized is very high performing.

Look at assembler programs running on modern desktops, the have poential to be ultra fast compared to higher level programming languages on the same system... again provided you have the skill to do it.

Since game engines are out now that are well optimized for the ps3, this allows dev's to program like a high level langauge (do X,Y,X) and the engine handles how it talks to the hardware.

Another Example (until they axed linux support ><) you can see how you can use the ps3 hardware for video editing / conversion (http://codecsys.fixstars.com/en/) and how a ps3 can use folding and process data at a much higher rate then pc's. (http://folding.stanford.edu/)

Note - I do think some of us reach the point of we agree to disagree.

If you want to beat up Sony for it's business decisions about removal of features PS2 BC, Linux on fat model, High prices preventing mass adoption until price drops, Cluttering up the streamlind XMB / mandatory new bar getting more comercial / ad, and I'd be more then happy to join you on that.

That was fun to read. Completely inaccurate on everything you said, but fun. it's like little random PS3 hardware comments from random forums on the web thrown together in a bowl mixed together and sort of patched together into a post :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to state that compression =/= poorer quality. Bad compression does, but not compression itself. That is an extremely common misconception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was fun to read. Completely inaccurate on everything you said, but fun. it's like little random PS3 hardware comments from random forums on the web thrown together in a bowl mixed together and sort of patched together into a post :)

My Lack of focus and rushing which is not a good combo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Lack of focus and rushing which is not a good combo.

Read the post above and you will know why your wrong. Someone already said that in the thread, but you didn't get it. If I need to I'll show you why through image compression examples. But I shouldn't have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We haven't found it more difficult to develop for PS3," he told CVG sister magazine PSM3.

Indeed, Sony probably bribed them :rofl:

:rofl: I imagine him reading that while a face-covered man points him with an AK-47 and there's a Sony banner behind them ......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your opinion, yes.

Oh course it's his opinion, the fact that he is right also helps as nothing on the 360 cant touch Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh course it's his opinion, the fact that he is right also helps as nothing on the 360 cant touch Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 for that matter.

laughter9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncharted is one thing, I don't really agree that nothing can "touch" it. but it's hard to really surpass it, not to say there aren't thing that don't look just as good.

it helps of course that everything Jungle automatically looks awesome, without the graphics necessarily being "better"

but KZ2.... why doe people even mention that along with UC2... it's not even the same class. it didn't even look better than older 360 games at launch. They did some clever tricks to make the game appear to look good. but all the trickery was so transparent, like old western movie sets where all the houses where flat front walls only

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncharted is one thing, I don't really agree that nothing can "touch" it. but it's hard to really surpass it, not to say there aren't thing that don't look just as good.

it helps of course that everything Jungle automatically looks awesome, without the graphics necessarily being "better"

but KZ2.... why doe people even mention that along with UC2... it's not even the same class. it didn't even look better than older 360 games at launch. They did some clever tricks to make the game appear to look good. but all the trickery was so transparent, like old western movie sets where all the houses where flat front walls only

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that was a pretty amusing quote^

the lighting in KZ2 alone kills off most games...

no question KZ2, UC2 and now GoW3 have set the bar. To say otherwise is silly, or plain denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not too interested in this game at the moment, but they should probably shut up the so called story writer for this game, he seems to have only bad things to say about other games at the moment and personally its putting me off game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who could have guessed this thread would turn out this way :o

I hear ya. Didn't take long for the usual suspects to interject their factual opinions laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncharted is one thing, I don't really agree that nothing can "touch" it. but it's hard to really surpass it, not to say there aren't thing that don't look just as good.

it helps of course that everything Jungle automatically looks awesome, without the graphics necessarily being "better"

but KZ2.... why doe people even mention that along with UC2... it's not even the same class. it didn't even look better than older 360 games at launch. They did some clever tricks to make the game appear to look good. but all the trickery was so transparent, like old western movie sets where all the houses where flat front walls only

I agree with this 100%

UC2 looks better than all console games as of right now, hands down, they set the bar really high, and I absolutely love the game's animations, it never ceases to impress me

KZ2 is rubbish. It has amazing CG-like weapon models, some nice effects, and is pumped with more post-processing roids than an athlete, and that's about all it has going for it. The world was totally boring, textures lacked detail and are completely washed out and not crisp, character models were lacking detail and boring to boot, booooring lighting, and it to sum it up just felt dead, even more dry than the environments in gears of war.

I liken KZ2 to an ugly girl with a ton of makeup and plastics to make her look nice. Analysts can tell what's really going on under the hood, but the average joe can't tell or doesn't care

God of War 3 looks great and is smooth (with quite a few slowdows), but it's nothing mind blowing, kinda like the Modern Warfare 2 engine. I think those engines were built with smoother gameplay in mind, rather than mind blowing visuals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this 100%

UC2 looks better than all console games as of right now, hands down, they set the bar really high, and I absolutely love the game's animations, it never ceases to impress me

KZ2 is rubbish. It has amazing CG-like weapon models, some nice effects, and is pumped with more post-processing roids than an athlete, and that's about all it has going for it. The world was totally boring, textures lacked detail and are completely washed out and not crisp, character models were lacking detail and boring to boot, booooring lighting, and it to sum it up just felt dead, even more dry than the environments in gears of war.

I liken KZ2 to an ugly girl with a ton of makeup and plastics to make her look nice. Analysts can tell what's really going on under the hood, but the average joe can't tell or doesn't care

God of War 3 looks great and is smooth (with quite a few slowdows), but it's nothing mind blowing, kinda like the Modern Warfare 2 engine. I think those engines were built with smoother gameplay in mind, rather than mind blowing visuals

Surely this is all that matters though? I certainly don't sit and 'analyse' the game I'm playing, looking for imperfections. KZ2 looks special.

God of War 3 also looks amazing.

Perhaps your TV is broken? :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.