PS3 v. 360 hardware comparison

[Gamer88]

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=4

I never really had a clear understanding of what all the specs for either system meant, this article made everything a little clearer.

I don't really know how to interpet it myself...I guess overall it says that the differences between the 360 and the PS3 are not as great as people make it out to be

I want to know what all of you think.

[Gamer88]

In my opinion it makes the xbox 360 look far more appealing, if only because the difference in graphical capabilities doesn't justify the price....

hopefully I can get a few responses, even if it's something completely negative

[Mochan]

Basically on that particular page they're saying the difference is there, but is insignificant.

[Gadfly2317]

Basically on that particular page they're saying the difference is there, but is insignificant.

What it also said was that the 360's structure was suited for better AI. And also that it would be significantly harder to tap into Ps3's extra power. . .and that neither are yet close to harnessing their full power because of the difficulty of multi-threaded programming.

What I wonder is which developers are most likely to put in the time and effort--and have the technical talent on hand--to even begin approaching these systems theoretical processing limits. And will it more likely be a Japanese developer, or an American one? And are the development teams most known for their technical proficiency also ones that make fun, compelling games?

[NEO-360]

What it also said was that the 360's structure was suited for better AI. And also that it would be significantly harder to tap into Ps3's extra power. . .and that neither are yet close to harnessing their full power because of the difficulty of multi-threaded programming.

What I wonder is which developers are most likely to put in the time and effort--and have the technical talent on hand--to even begin approaching these systems theoretical processing limits. And will it more likely be a Japanese developer, or an American one? And are the development teams most known for their technical proficiency also ones that make fun, compelling games?

The 360 may have the upper hand for quite awhile. If those developers doesnt figure out how to develop games for the PS3 real quick 2007 may be the year alot of those so-called PS3 exclusives may become 360 ports as well.:idea:

[folken001]

I didn't read the whole article but I did get the general idea what it's saying. Instead though, I spent like 2hrs watching John Carmack's keynote at QuakeCon this year.(links found on that site) He did some interesting comparison betwwen xbox360 and ps3. He also went on and talked about the future of video games. I think it's quite interesting.

[Gamer88]

Mochan
Basically on that particular page they're saying the difference is there, but is insignificant.

What do you think? Do you think the difference is insignificant?

I personally found the article to offer hard-to-dispute evidence that the difference between the two consoles really is insignificant...which could definatly effect my decision on which one to purchase in the future.

Of course, it will largely come down to games...

but price, graphics, and projected support will definatly influence the decision. If the 360 can offer almost the same graphically quality (in the long run), remain cheaper, (an easy to program for) it will likely gain more 3rd party support, and thus have the games, and gear to win this generation.

[Cuddly Knife]

What I wonder is which developers are most likely to put in the time and effort--and have the technical talent on hand--to even begin approaching these systems theoretical processing limits. And will it more likely be a Japanese developer, or an American one? And are the development teams most known for their technical proficiency also ones that make fun, compelling games?Well, Gears tapped the potential of the 360. Best graphics, fun, insane action, solid AI, great multi-player(co-op, versus off line or online), no loading. I wonder how much of the 360 was used to make this game.

And only a fool would say that this is pretty much the limits of the console. You didn't say it Gad, but someones here has said it a time or two.

Mass Effect will also be a game that wows on every level, methinks. The only thing I'm worried about is loading times. KOTOR and JE had some rank load times.

[Zilla Man]

Well, Gears tapped the potential of the 360. Best graphics, fun, insane action, solid AI, great multi-player(co-op, versus off line or online), no loading. I wonder how much of the 360 was used to make this game.

Sorry, but the AI in GOW is medocre at best, especially when compared to Resistance and FEAR. The graphics in Gears may be next-gen but the AI isn't. The levels I played were exactly the same as the demo at E3 earlier this year.

[Cuddly Knife]

Yeah, don't play on casual, big guy. Insane is where you see how enemies really react. They'll chainsaw-kill you twice before you hit the ground.

[folken001]

Yeah, don't play on casual, big guy. Insane is where you see how enemies really react. They'll chainsaw-kill you twice before you hit the ground.
That's not what I call good A.I. It's not like they become smarter. They just become unreasonable. When I used to play perfect dark in multiplayer and bots on the hardest difficulty would own my friends and I. They were shooting with almost 100% accuracy and extremely evasive. It was almost impossible to kill them. My strategy used to be camping out at one location on the 2nd floor of this building. The bots jump off from the 3rd or 4th floor and shot me in the head on their way down.

[Mochan]

Yes, that's not good AI. That's just increasing their accuracy and reaction time. Back during the Quake 1 days, there was this bot called "Reaper Bot" which was the self-styled "most advanced bot" available. But really all that meant was that the bot knew where you were at all times, could predict your shots by reading where they go and changing course appropriately (thus being almost unhittable), and could predict where you move by instantly assessing your speed and trajectory and firing where you are going to be at the time its shot reaches your apparent position. With 100% accuracy and almost nil response time. This isn't a smart bot, just a goddamn cheater with a super "aimbot" if you will. But a good training bot -- if you canf ight against it and score a kill (and incrementally improve how many kills you make to death ratio) then you are improving your FPS game dramatically.

Good AI for me is the kind of AI that can simulate how a human player would play, at various skill levels. You can't emulate a good player's play skill just by increasing accuracy and reaction time to 100%. A good player moves around the map and behaves differently from a bot (or novice player), and a good player can still be caught in ambushes and the like -- they are not omniscient and plan their moves based on omniscient knowledge of where you are. So if you don't appear in their line of sight they should continue about their business as usual, and if they are unskilled they should be camping all the time and doing all sorts of weird moves (but not obviously stupid or random), while a higher level bot will efficiently move around the map and take advantage of terrain and teamwork like you would expect a good human team to do. That's my take on it, and not necessarily bots that simply headshot you the moment they get within range.

Thus good AI is more like what you see in FEAR. Since it's a corridor shooter, the bots know you are hiding when they see you then shoot and duck behind a pillar, then the "contact" their other bot friends and send these guys into that other corridor which allows them to come up behind you (but they don't do it if they didn't see you!) This is why FEAR is a corridor shooter: the corridors make it easier to code AI like this.

GOW, honestly I don't know, I haven't played enough of the game to deternine how smart the enemy is exactly, but from what I played in the Normal difficulty level the AI wasn't smart at all. Not about as dumb as the AI in Call of Juarez but pretty close.

As for what I think of the PS3's hardware superiority, it's like this: graphically the two are very very close. The RSX's specs are not heads and shoulders above the Xenon, or vice versa. They are pretty much head to head, and while I give slight advantage to the RSX, the unified shader approach is no slouch even though I feel it is inferior in really maximizing the GPU power when you have a super expert coder balancing the load manually.

The main difference between the two is in the Cell, and speaking of AI strictly speaking more CPU power doesn't usually equate to better graphics (this is pretty much the job of the GPU). It does however allow better physics, faster loading and better AI, among other things. Allegedly the Cell can interface with the RSX to accelerate graphical performance; if the PS3 can demonstrate this then it will definitely have better graphics. The question is whether developers can manage to pull that kind of efficiency off.

[Cuddly Knife]

Yeah, you guys don't know because you haven't played Gears on Insane.

while a higher level bot will efficiently move around the map and take advantage of terrain and teamwork like you would expect a good human team to do. Gears Insane mode to a T.

[folken001]

Yeah, you guys don't know because you haven't played Gears on Insane.

Gears Insane mode to a T.

I am sure you believe that every enemy can actually think for themselves on insane, but I am also sure that's not the case.

I can probably try insane difficulty but I am too busy with Resistance right now.

[folken001]

GOW, honestly I don't know, I haven't played enough of the game to deternine how smart the enemy is exactly, but from what I played in the Normal difficulty level the AI wasn't smart at all. Not about as dumb as the AI in Call of Juarez but pretty close.


I've played GoW for about 5 hours. A lot of times, I'd stand right next to the enemy and they would do a damn thing. They act as if they don't see me or something.

[Gamer88]

I've played GoW for about 5 hours. A lot of times, I'd stand right next to the enemy and they would do a damn thing. They act as if they don't see me or something.

not to mention the stupidity of your allied AI. I beat the game, and played through half of it a second time....and yeah...it's astonishing how stupid your allies can be. At times, they were more annoying then they were worth

also, did anyone else encounter many glitches in the game? me and my friend has a couple times where an enemy would be out of reach so our allies would shoot at it and the enemy was basically stuck, so we had to reset the game...

[Gamer88]

I was hoping for more direct opinions on the article I posted.

Folken, Mochan, ....especially Zilla man, and of course all you other people, did the article at all influence or change your opinion on the two consoles? If even slightly?

For me, at the very least, it narrowed the margin between what I thought was the difference of the two consoles. I don't understand, how even a few years down the road, the PS3 could have a signifcantly large advantage over the xbox360.

Certainly not to the porportions of the ps2 vs xbox

[Mochan]

Folken, Mochan, ....especially Zilla man, and of course all you other people, did the article at all influence or change your opinion on the two consoles? If even slightly?

No.


<Insert Signature Below>

[Gamer88]

No.


<Insert Signature Below>

why?

because your knowledge is so vast that you could have written the article?

or that you just didn't read it because you don't give a damn?

or, maybe you know something I don't?:skep:

if so, enlighten me

please

[Mochan]

Most of what was in the article already fits into what I thought I knew from what I read in the past.

There are a few things I learned about the two systems from the article, like how AI code doesn't work well on the 360 CPU and especially on the PS3 CPU, and how the 360's shaders can do twice the amount of pixel shader operations I thought it could (which led to why I put the RSX as hands down superior before). Well I was of the opinion that the PS3 has a bit of a graphical edge over the Xenos anyway despite the revised numbers, but that what is really going to make the graphical difference isn't the GPU but rather how the GPU ties in with the CPU -- and the Cell has the advantage there (and this was pretty much what the article also said)

[Cuddly Knife]

I'll agree that the friendly AI blows dog in Gears, but the enemies are sneaky.

And what makes it so a system can create better AI? What's a CPU and what's it for? Yes, I'm that uninformed.

[theWacoKid]

Performance specs are now a moot point with both consoles out. You now look at the software to determine which system has bragging rights. Gears vs. RFOM. Multiplat titles ps3 version vs 360 version. Either the ps3 quickly catches up to the 360, or its a long hard road for sony.

[folken001]

.

not to mention the stupidity of your allied AI. I beat the game, and played through half of it a second time....and yeah...it's astonishing how stupid your allies can be. At times, they were more annoying then they were worth

also, did anyone else encounter many glitches in the game? me and my friend has a couple times where an enemy would be out of reach so our allies would shoot at it and the enemy was basically stuck, so we had to reset the game...

Allied A.I in Resistance is pretty good but they are too weak. Most of the time they are killed before they can do anything truly helpful.

I've only played through the game once, I didn't spot any glitches. Wait, is the instant death chainsaw a glitch? No? Well I think it should be.

[folken001]

I am behind Sony 100% for trying new things. Yes the price is a bit high than it should be. But, I chose to get the 600 dollars PS3. It's not so bad if you get the 500 bucks one.

Plus, from what I heard of John Carmack, it seems even he didn't exactly know how much more improvement PS3 will show over Xbox360. It could be little and it could also be more than noticable. In my opinion, people can think what they want about PS3 at this time, but 90% of them probably won't be accurate. Let the programmers work it out first and 1 year later, you can make your judgement on PS3.

[thelastword]

I think right now all these comparisons mean nothing, the consoles are out and we are already seeing what the PS3 is capable of even out the gate. What's interesting though is how much things will improve in terms of this machines output. I think Gears is really pushing the 360, somethings that were present when we first saw Gears clearly didn't make it on the final release, like the universal lighting system. Personally what I'm seeing now is a greater attestation to the power of these machines, I really do think that the 360 would chug with a game like Resistance, Hell it's handling a less impressive shooter like COD3 with laclustre framerates, even Gears dips every now and then. So I'm looking at the games and this one is first generation and spectacular looking IMO. Here's Motorstorm for you..As TED PRICE said second gen PS3 games are really going to seperate far and away from the competition. If PS3 is giving me such graphics now, Ratchet, RFOM2, GT5, Project Big, GOW3 and Team ICO's project will knock everything out the ballpark, I'm not even sure how the 360 will compete come second generation.

http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/uploads/vgr/155725/321264897_99f07554a0_b.jpg

http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/uploads/vgr/155725/MS1.jpg

http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/uploads/vgr/155725/MS6.jpg

http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/uploads/vgr/155725/MS7.jpg

http://gallery.roadbikereview.com/uploads/vgr/155725/MS3.jpg

[Cuddly Knife]

Niice. Now, how can I be mad at the PS3 when it's giving me shine like that? Oh yeah, Burnout 5, a multi-plat game, will rank Motorstorm in fun, online, vehicle deformation, and overall baddassness. And that sucks of Sony to send out the game to Japan as is, and allow more time to include better stuff for US and Europe. Japan seems to be getting it up the wazzoo this time for the PS3.

Also, i've seen track deformation like that before. Pocketbike Racer has it.

[thelastword]

Well, the lack of modes in this version is the only knock against it atm, but generally the Japanese are not so much into offroad racers anyway. Personally I don't think it matters that it was released in Japan first with that in mind.

Graphically, this game is amazing and it's quite challenging and fun from the feedback received as well. The American and Euro versions are going to be packed and EVO STUDIOS have already made mention of downloadable tracks on the PSN, A snow stage would be amazing IMO. There's also a night course but haven't seen pics of it from this version, not sure if it's in there.

[Renzatic Gear]

I dunno if that's actual deformable terrain. It looks to me like they're layering parallax mapped decal textures over the ground textures to make it look like it's moving polygons around.

It's a neat trick, and it definately takes some processing power to pull it off...but it's nothing the 360 couldn't do.

[Mochan]

Deformable Terrain = Company of Heroes

[PapaSmurf]

Deformable Terrain = Company of Heroes

Shhh! You're going to make them mad! That's a PC game for Christ's sake!

[Cuddly Knife]

Yeah, Papa, and Motorstorm is PS3 exclusive.

[Gamer88]

folken001
I am behind Sony 100% for trying new things. Yes the price is a bit high than it should be. But, I chose to get the 600 dollars PS3. It's not so bad if you get the 500 bucks one.

Plus, from what I heard of John Carmack, it seems even he didn't exactly know how much more improvement PS3 will show over Xbox360. It could be little and it could also be more than noticable. In my opinion, people can think what they want about PS3 at this time, but 90% of them probably won't be accurate. Let the programmers work it out first and 1 year later, you can make your judgement on PS3.

From a technical standpoint, what exactly gives the PS3 a significant hardware advantage? or what gives it enough promise that compelled you to buy the system?

After reading the article, and others, I can't really understand the signifcance graphically between the two consoles...even if the potential of both the consoles is unlocked 100%

the big factor to me would be the blu-ray

haha, I wonder what monolith soft would do with a xenosaga for the PS3, that game had a lot of in game cutscenes...I wonder if they could make some really high quality CGI cutscenes (to the length of their xenosaga cutscenes) and fit them on the bluray...probably...that would be awesome to me...

heck, they could basically make it a movie with some game elements haha

[Gamer88]

Most of what was in the article already fits into what I thought I knew from what I read in the past.

There are a few things I learned about the two systems from the article, like how AI code doesn't work well on the 360 CPU and especially on the PS3 CPU, and how the 360's shaders can do twice the amount of pixel shader operations I thought it could (which led to why I put the RSX as hands down superior before). Well I was of the opinion that the PS3 has a bit of a graphical edge over the Xenos anyway despite the revised numbers, but that what is really going to make the graphical difference isn't the GPU but rather how the GPU ties in with the CPU -- and the Cell has the advantage there (and this was pretty much what the article also said)

but how big is that graphical difference going to be? and the cell advantage...is it really significant?

heh, im going to read the article again to refresh my memory

[Mochan]

The graphical advantage in the RSX vs. Xenon war will be minor at best. The bigger question is the Cell advantage. How significant is that then? I have no idea.I've never seen CPU-accelerated graphics before.

[thelastword]

I dunno if that's actual deformable terrain. It looks to me like they're layering parallax mapped decal textures over the ground textures to make it look like it's moving polygons around.

It's a neat trick, and it definately takes some processing power to pull it off...but it's nothing the 360 couldn't do.I don't know, such a reply is so typical, this could be done on 360 that could be done on the 360, but my point is we've seen nothing on such a level on the 360 being available for over a year now. You don't know that EVO is making use of parallax mapping, you're only assuming that and even if that is the case, that is not the point. I don't think anyone is saying the 360 can't do parallax mapping, hell, that was in use on a launch game in PDZ, but what we have here is much more impressive than PDZ, much more impressive than Gears.

[Gamer88]

thelastword
I don't know, such a reply is so typical, this could be done on 360 that could be done on the 360, but my point is we've seen nothing on such a level on the 360 being available for over a year now. You don't know that EVO is making use of parallax mapping, you're only assuming that and even if that is the case, that is not the point. I don't think anyone is saying the 360 can't do parallax mapping, hell, that was in use on a launch game in PDZ, but what we have here is much more impressive than PDZ, much more impressive than Gears.

thats kind of why its a good thing th ps3 is out, maybe it will cause microsoft to push develops to be more competitive and take further advantage of the 360.

[Mochan]

Monopoly = bad
Competition = good. For us. Up to a point, anyway. Competition between Intel and AMD, for instance, and from NVidia and ATI, caused technology to fast forward, but ended up in an arms race that drove games to evolve with the hardware, thus forcing people to upgrade hardware more often than ever before if they wanted to keep up with the games.

We're seeing some of the effects of this on the console front already.

[Renzatic Gear]

I don't know, such a reply is so typical, this could be done on 360 that could be done on the 360, but my point is we've seen nothing on such a level on the 360 being available for over a year now. You don't know that EVO is making use of parallax mapping, you're only assuming that and even if that is the case, that is not the point. I don't think anyone is saying the 360 can't do parallax mapping, hell, that was in use on a launch game in PDZ, but what we have here is much more impressive than PDZ, much more impressive than Gears.

In presentation maybe. But presentation and true technological feats are two entirely different things. If it's using parallax mapping, there's nothing new there that can't be done elsewhere.

[Mochan]

Parallax mapping should be a piece of cake for either console.

[thelastword]

In presentation maybe. But presentation and true technological feats are two entirely different things. If it's using parallax mapping, there's nothing new there that can't be done elsewhere.Well, that's reasoning based on speculation, so it carries no weight. I think results carry more weight than supposition though. There are several factors to bear in mind, first off the 360 was only able to show us something really next gen a year in and there have been more ambitious titles on the PS3 from day one in comparison to that effort. I think March next year is going to be an extended showcase of PS3's first gen capabilities which will deny 360's best second gen efforts through and through. From Motorstorm to VF5 in February to Hsword and Lair in March, then unto DMC4, MGS4 and Warhawk later that year, of course so many more.

[thelastword]

thats kind of why its a good thing th ps3 is out, maybe it will cause microsoft to push develops to be more competitive and take further advantage of the 360.

Well. I'm not sure that devs weren't trying to push the 360, wev'e been hearing quite regularly especially from the xbots that it is easier to develop for, so why are the devs taking so long to deliver entry level next gen efforts? Gears certainly did not use the unified lighting system we saw on that very first trailer, so some compromises had to be made. Have you seen shots of GRAW2, makers of the XBOX 180's best looking game according to the bots, I see no upgrade in terms of visuals in Graw2 and we all know when GRAW came out how animated some bots were about these visuals. Are we going to see huge leaps from current 360 games to those coming later, not huge IMO as for PS3, just using one example, I think RFOM2 is going to blow RFOM away. I think Ratchet is going to blow RFOM away, I think Motorstorm 2 will blow Motorstorm away, if you get my drift. Project Big and GT5 though will obliterate everything.

[Renzatic Gear]

Well, that's reasoning based on speculation, so it carries no weight. I think results carry more weight than supposition though.

It's an educated guess. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. Take this picture right here...notice the little red circles I made:

http://users.chartertn.net/greymatt/dirt_example.jpg

That's a pretty fine example of texture aliasing. It's what happens when you zoom in on a filtered texture. Since parallax maps are just textures, you'll get aliasing if you look at them up close...you wouldn't get this if they were polygons.

Want more proof? I made this little picture to drive my point home. I took a few strokes (olol) and zoomed in on it using the bog standard Windows XP Picture Viewer:

http://users.chartertn.net/greymatt/texture_example.jpg

Looks similar, huh?

So I'm guessing they're using parallax maps for the deformable terrain. It's a neat idea, came off pretty convincingly. But like I said before, it's nothing that can't be done on the 360.

[folken001]

Let's think about this logically. It's not something that can't be done on 360. Yet, why hasn't it been done on 360 after 1 year?

[Renzatic Gear]

It has...just not so creatively.

[thelastword]

That's a pretty fine example of texture aliasing. It's what happens when you zoom in on a filtered texture. Since parallax maps are just textures, you'll get aliasing if you look at them up close...you wouldn't get this if they were polygons. Gear, I see no sign of texture aliasing, none whatsoever. All I see are tyre tracks churned out and shaped by a host of vehicles. If you ask me, I think this technology is amazing and give props to Evolution Studios for pushing the envelope with PS3 hardware and technology in general. Frankly I think you're really reaching here, and surely, must be blind, the only aliasing I saw was in your second illustration certainly not in the motorstorm pic.

Here are some quotes on what's really happening in Motorstorm, the technology explained;


But more on vehicles in a moment: we need to talk surfaces.That might sound like the most boring segueway into another paragraph in the history of words, but it's something you'll be finding out a lot about over the coming months as we learn all there is to know about Persistent Terrain Deformation. It might sound like this year's HDR, but unlike so many buzzwords of the part, this particular innovation has real gameplay potential that begins to demonstrate that not all next gen chit chat has to be about high def, physics and prettier visuals.

In simple terms it means this: when the race starts, each track's surface is undisturbed: pressed in, and largely flat, but as you drive on it, your wheels will quickly churn up the surface. Any impact you (or your opponents) have on the mud/gravel/whatever stays there so that when you come back for subsequent laps, the deformation is still there ("You'll never race the same lap twice").
Did you read that? Moving on.. Is that enough, I'll give you some more though..


If this was simply a visual thing, that would be quite cool on its own, but, in fact, the ridges and grooves that everyone creates have a direct impact on everyone's handling from then on. Which brings us neatly back to the vehicles and how they cope with that. Phew.
And since you don't know much about Motorstorm and it's tech, here's even more for you;


"The surface type is incredibly important," asserts Smith, "because different vehicles have different strengths. Driving on mud or rock is a very different experience, and your opponents know what [type of surface] they want to be driving on, and what you don't want to be on." So, for example, if you're driving a buggy, you'll go slower in mud and churn it up even more, and your opponents will do all they can to take advantage of this weakness.

"They will try to knock you onto it," Smith nods. After 20 cars have driven over one lap, it will be "a completely different experience" the next time. Maybe the Emotion Engine is finally ready, eh?


And it's not just a cunning surface trick, either. The deformation extends to the rest of the track too. "Sometimes you might take a ramp out or a shack to reveal a new route," he says, which in itself might force - for example - the bike riders to completely change their route, possibly diverting them onto a surface that doesn't suit them. And it's not just car tyres that deform terrain. "It might be a driver's leg, head, or debris falling from a bridge which is kinda cool," notes Smith.

"The race constantly evolves. Because of the changing surface types there's a real strategy involved...and you always have to look at what's ahead. Because of this real-time track deformation, we've had to invest heavily in the particle side and want it to get really messy." It certainly is one of the filthier games around, and not only is there plenty of crap being kicked up behind vehicles, the vehicles themselves quickly become covered in dirt, making them look practically unrecognisable within a lap or so. Factor in the general damage modelling and it's a game that gives instant visual cues as to the state of your ride

The link is here (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=64683), end of story.

[Gadfly2317]

Wasn't "The Parralax Map" an episode of Dr. Who?

Meh, I don't get all this. All I know is that from playing the game, I want to play more, and I hope they fix the laundry list of problems the game has been cited for, including, as IGN put it "the most featureless racer I've ever played." I want to play it based on my own limited time with the game, and also based on feedback like this:

I put up with the missing features and spent the weekend playing Motorstorm's racing events. And sure enough, I agree with the glowing impressions our boys in Europe have previously posted here at IGNPS3. The driving component of Motorstorm is a blast to play. You've never played a racing game quite like this, where the type of car you select can totally change the feel of the course, where the bumps and other obstacles that line the course are more of a challenge than your opponent racers, and where each lap can be raced on a different path. As I played, I found myself thinking that no two races are ever alike, and every race is better than the last.

Motorstorm is also the first real proof of the PS3's true technical prowess (Resistance provided just a few hints). The game manages to deliver sharp detail up close for the cars and tracks, along with distant views full of extraneous details, including lots of waving banners. And beneath all that is an impressive simulation of 20 cars interacting with the track.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/751/751452p1.html

[Renzatic Gear]

I could argue with you all day about what does what to who and when, but it'd be alot of wasted effort on my part since you don't want to listen.

It's pretty. It's impressive. But it can be done on the 360. Ultimately it might not look quite as sharp as it does on the PS3, but it won't be a pale shadow in comparison either.

[Mochan]

Regarding the terrain deformation, I'll have to play the game myself to see how the terrain really deforms. With some camera angle manipulation, we should be able to really tell whether it's just a parallax map or a real 3D polygonal deformation.

I feel it's more likely to be a parallax map. Terrain deformation via polygons is gonna need a lot of vertex-pushing power, and the 360 I think actually has potentially more of that thanks to its unified shaders. Anyway I won't know until I get to actually play the game.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

Mochan I don't know why you don't believe in USA (unified Shader Architexture) everybody is doing it the RSX is going to be the only chip on the market that doesn't have it. Even Nvidida who said it wasn't that valuable is including it in all there newest GPU's that shows right there that it's here for the future and it's one of the biggest features of DX10.

A.I. if you play GOW on insane you will notice what cuddly says about Tactis I even got flanked and Chainsawed from behind. It's not the typcal enemies take more shots and get more accurate. It actually seems like they improve the A.I. routines on insane difficulty. But anyone whose bother to play single player UT (yeah why would you I know) can see how advanced Epic is on enemy A.I. As for gears they don't flank they even rush right out in front of you and take carbine shots to the head and stand there. Any one talking up the A.I. in this game either 1 never played it or 2 don't know what the hell good A.I. is. Resistance is a hell of alot better than Ratchet and Clanks pattern based attacks.

Best examples of A.I. in a game imnsho is

1. Brothers in Blood series- The ally and enemy A.I. is above anything in any game on any platform.

2. Halo 2 for the simple fact the A.I. in this game is asked to do more than enemy A.I. in any other Game. Although this game is prime example of cheating on Higher difficulty levels the A.I. doesn't get better your shields get weaker. But no A.I. I've ever played in a game has flanking tactics , taking cover, competent vehicle attacks and so forth.

3.Fear In just pure gun play this may be the toughest A.I. I've ever seen.

[Mochan]

I want to make this clear. My issue with unified/shared stems from a deep-seated bias against unified anything when unified often means poorer performance in the PC realm. I've been through this before and don't want to get all techy on it.

Xbox has 2 Unified systems of note: the unified memory shared between GPU and CPU, which definitely has an issue as it results in both components eating each other's bandwidth; and the unified shader architecture, which is actually not that bad an idea -- the beef I had with this in the past was always with the efficiency of each shader. I have noted here that I was surprised to find out the shaders actually do twice the number of operations I originally thought they could... not my fault it was MS who misquoted themselves.

You may recall in previous threads I even gave out a computation of how each card's shaders stack up in the number of operations they make, and the RSX came out on top back then with the data we had. Today I have not tried to recalculate which card has more power, taking into consideration twice the power the shaders on the 360 now have. I don't really want to belabor the point anymore; just take note that my main beef with the USA back then was not the architecture itself, but rather that the shaders were not as powerful as dedicated shaders. If the dedicated shaders can only do the same amount of work, then the unified shaders have the obvious edge.


As for AI I made it pretty clear that I do not know since I haven't played GOW long enough on other difficulty levels to really know. But as for the AI routines in UT upping the difficulty pretty much just increases accuracy and reaction time. True there are differences in AI behaviour though' low level AI is stupid and has a tendency to stand still while higher level ones just keep jumping around. This is still more a "faster and more accurate" thing than actually getting more intelligence.The AI though is relatively good as is and could implement team-play tactics.

My beef with Gears AI is that I've observed quite a few enemies just rushing out of cover and turning their butt to you asking to get skewered. I saw this happen 3 times in just 2 levels I played for several minutes. It's still better than the idiots in Call of Juarez but I wouldn't be too keen on calling it super AI.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

I want to make this clear. My issue with unified/shared stems from a deep-seated bias against unified anything when unified often means poorer performance in the PC realm. I've been through this before and don't want to get all techy on it.

Xbox has 2 Unified systems of note: the unified memory shared between GPU and CPU, which definitely has an issue as it results in both components eating each other's bandwidth; and the unified shader architecture, which is actually not that bad an idea -- the beef I had with this in the past was always with the efficiency of each shader. I have noted here that I was surprised to find out the shaders actually do twice the number of operations I originally thought they could... not my fault it was MS who misquoted themselves.

You may recall in previous threads I even gave out a computation of how each card's shaders stack up in the number of operations they make, and the RSX came out on top back then with the data we had. Today I have not tried to recalculate which card has more power, taking into consideration twice the power the shaders on the 360 now have. I don't really want to belabor the point anymore; just take note that my main beef with the USA back then was not the architecture itself, but rather that the shaders were not as powerful as dedicated shaders. If the dedicated shaders can only do the same amount of work, then the unified shaders have the obvious edge.


As for AI I made it pretty clear that I do not know since I haven't played GOW long enough on other difficulty levels to really know. But as for the AI routines in UT upping the difficulty pretty much just increases accuracy and reaction time. True there are differences in AI behaviour though' low level AI is stupid and has a tendency to stand still while higher level ones just keep jumping around. This is still more a "faster and more accurate" thing than actually getting more intelligence.The AI though is relatively good as is and could implement team-play tactics.

My beef with Gears AI is that I've observed quite a few enemies just rushing out of cover and turning their butt to you asking to get skewered. I saw this happen 3 times in just 2 levels I played for several minutes. It's still better than the idiots in Call of Juarez but I wouldn't be too keen on calling it super AI.


In Gears there is a bunch of that but I do remember specifically when you get rushed from one point you usually get flanked from another one.

Honestly though A.I. in videogames does have a long way to go. That's why when any developer gets to talking about there A.I. in previews I just usually :rolleyes:.

As for USA I just though you hated all unified systems. There is a real issues with the memory band with though. Which is why I think a lot of PS2 games ran at faster framerates.

[thelastword]

I could argue with you all day about what does what to who and when, but it'd be alot of wasted effort on my part since you don't want to listen. After all these quotes huh, no doubt it would be wasted, it's what you assume against impressions and what the dev actually detailed.


It's pretty. It's impressive. But it can be done on the 360. Ultimately it might not look quite as sharp as it does on the PS3, but it won't be a pale shadow in comparison either. Well when it get's done on the 360 please let me know, till then, this persistent terrain deformation tech looks mighty impressive on the PS3.

[Gadfly2317]

After all these quotes huh, no doubt it would be wasted, it's what you assume against impressions and what the dev actually detailed.

Well when it get's done on the 360 please let me know, till then, this persistent terrain deformation tech looks mighty impressive on the PS3.

I didn't see anywhere in your dev quotes that said whether or not the "terrain deformation" as the developers dub it is done through polygons or parralax mapping. It seems like its you that is making assumptions, not Renz.

I have no idea what type of technique they are using to give the feel that the track has been altered or to create the visuals, but I haven't seen you post anything to that indicates its done through polygons.

I have no idea why it matters, and I have no idea what parralax mapping is. I don't care how Motorstorm is done, I just know it looks really cool. To me it seems more like developer creativity rather than some sort of technical superiority over the 360. That's still my biggest hangup about the 360 is how utterly unimaginative most of the games on it are.

[Renzatic Gear]

I went to Gametrailers and watched the Bash 'n Cash (http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=1678) HD video.

I can safely say it's parallax mapping. You can tell during the part with the guy racing the dirtbike on the muddy canyon track. The ruts and grooves flatten out and look like regular normalmaps when it gets close to the camera.

There's obviously alot more going on than just fancy decal textures, I'm not gonna diss a job well done. But for about the 50 thousandth time, there's nothing going on in that game that can only be done with X-TREEM AWESOME POLYGON CRUNCHING POWER OF THE PS3tm! There aren't any polygons getting shifted around, it's just very clever shader and texture usage.

[thelastword]

There's obviously alot more going on than just fancy decal textures, I'm not gonna diss a job well done. But for about the 50 thousandth time, there's nothing going on in that game that can only be done with X-TREEM AWESOME POLYGON CRUNCHING POWER OF THE PS3tm! There aren't any polygons getting shifted around, it's just very clever shader and texture usage.But of course, this is what stemmed the argument in the first place, as I've said before I expect Motorstorm 2 to blow Motorstorm 1 the eff away, that's more or less a given, I also made mention of the same happening when RFOM2 hits, especially since Ted Price (of Insomniac) said that they're only scratching the surface here on their first gen efforts. Personally, I don't care that, to you they're making use of parallax maps in a video, It is still your opinion. What I'm interested in seeing is a game on the 360 that does something like it, especially considering that such results are being returned in the PS3's first month on the shelves. Hey as you said, we can go through this all day, you want me to take your word for it and I can if it's a generous day but I'm interested in seeing it on the 360 not having faith in your assumptions. Hell, we had similar arguments on 1080P on the 360, you said no problem 1080P can be done on 360, why? because the PS3 already had games running at that res, but just like this case where are the 1080P games, I'm not seeing any, you? I don't man, staying on the sidelines and saying something can be done is pure and unalduterated crapsmack. It's just like a third rate sprinter saying he could run just as fast as ATO BOLDEN, but the thing is he's been on the track forever and hasn't set the times ATO has on his first try. As I said third rate sprinter, at least show me that you can match ATO's record, in the meantime I'll be on the sidelines watching every race to see if you can.

[Renzatic Gear]

Personally, I don't care that, to you they're making use of parallax maps in a video, It is still your opinion. What I'm interested in seeing is a game on the 360 that does something like it, especially considering that such results are being returned in the PS3's first month on the shelves.

There's no "to me" or "my opinion" here. Anyone that knows what they're looking at can watch the damn video and tell what's going on.

Hell, we had similar arguments on 1080P on the 360, you said no problem 1080P can be done on 360, why? because the PS3 already had games running at that res, but just like this case where are the 1080P games, I'm not seeing any, you?

I remember saying it could be done, but how well it'd run was still up in the air. Considering the 360 has some strengths the PS3 doesn't, it shouldn't be too difficult for people to make some games at that resolution. And hey, it's not like the PS3 isn't have any problems at all running 1080p. I've heard of alot of ports having framerate issues, and Resistance, the PS3's current big technical showcase, is stuck at 720p.

If anyone is screaming "it can do it!" from the sidelines, it's you.

[mathew952]

I think hardware wise, the PS3 has the upperhand, but the extra $200 isn't worth it.
The 60GB Hard Drive
Big deal. Time and time again we've seen the save files to be propotinate to the memory.
So the lazy developer can be cheap and not buy File compression. And if your going to store sll these things on there, just buy a full PC.
The Cell Proccessor
The PS3 cache size is much too small, and with only 6 availible for games, 5 at some times, it won't be all it's cracked up to be
The Graphics.
While the RSX is more powerfull, Microsoft is the developer of the Direct X, so they will be able to use less, much more efficently then the PS3. EX: the Os on the 360 is only 2% of the usage, Because of their expirience with OS.But sony is 25%.Apply same to GPU.
The Blu ray
Blu ray is losing the next gen battle badly due to the fact it is double the $ of HD-DVD( for the player, They pick the most popular one, cost is everything).
They haven't even begun to tap bluray capabilites, but they aren't needed as file compression becomes better. A dvd holds 8 gigs. I've neve seen a game bigger than that.
Blu ray = betamax
Sixaxis controller
If you want this, buy a wii. I personally think that they are different controllers( 360 & Ps3), not better ones.Some people will like motion sensetivity, others won't.

360 all the way. sony has definetly lost this time around, out sold by the Wii, with the 360 in a close second.

[ilnadmy]

As far as I know, PS3 is using OpenGL, or at least the dev kits have tools for the use of OpenGL.

Also, Blu-ray has around 4 or 5 exclusive production houses backing it, while HD-DVD has only 1. So far I'd say things are going Blu-ray's way.

[Gamer88]

As far as I know, PS3 is using OpenGL, or at least the dev kits have tools for the use of OpenGL.

Also, Blu-ray has around 4 or 5 exclusive production houses backing it, while HD-DVD has only 1. So far I'd say things are going Blu-ray's way.

It seems that Blu-ray should definatly be adopted as the next-gen format because of this. It seems to me though that even though Blu-ray has more support, that HD-DVD is winning all the small battles so far in this war.

I guess it's good that at least if the HD-DVD fails its not a built in part of the 360 so we are not forced to use a dead format.

[joquito]

HD-DVD is ahead of Blu-Ray in every category. At one point HD-DVD disc were selling more than Blu-Ray disc 3:1.

http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/

Granted sales are down for both formats, so there are no signs of either being a winner.

[Gamer88]

HD-DVD is ahead of Blu-Ray in every category. At one point HD-DVD disc were selling more than Blu-Ray disc 3:1.

http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/

Granted sales are down for both formats, so there are no signs of either being a winner.

The format wars interests me even more than the console wars for some reason. I wonder where the two formats will be a year from now, hell, they might not be too much further than they are now. That would suck if the winner still wasn't obvious a year from now

[folken001]

It's really sad on HDDVD's part. The production cost of HDDVD is significant less than Blu-ray. Yet, they couldn't take advantage of that. Honestly, why bother get HDDVD or Blu-ray at htis point? I am not willing to pay 20 bucks for movies. And why pay the same price for the weaker product?

[joquito]

It's really sad on HDDVD's part. The production cost of HDDVD is significant less than Blu-ray. Yet, they couldn't take advantage of that. Honestly, why bother get HDDVD or Blu-ray at htis point? I am not willing to pay 20 bucks for movies. And why pay the same price for the weaker product?

I assume you are referring to HD-DVD as the weaker product. According to most forums, HD-DVD is still ahead in picture quality based on the movies that are out. Also most HD-DVD disc online are sold for cheaper than the Blu-Ray counterparts. Lets not mention the $500 difference in the price of the stand alone players.

Many assumed the PS3 would thrust Blu-ray into the spotlight. Yet with the lackluster launch of the PS3, many analyst are changing their minds about Blu-Ray's viability. The catalyst will be which format will receive The Star Wars Trilogy, The Matrix Trilogy, and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. These are the Killer App / exclusives either format needs to win. There's tons of speculation about these titles but no real facts yet.

[ilnadmy]

Just give me Casino Royale in Blu-ray and I'll be a happy camper. Oh, and Gladiator.

[NEO-360]

Just give me Casino Royale in Blu-ray and I'll be a happy camper. Oh, and Gladiator.

Paying $19.99 is good enough for me with the regular DVD's. But $29.99 for blu-ray movies? Extra $10 bucks for what? Even sharper pictures and better sound? Thanks but no thanks.Every regular DVD comes with plenty of extras so I dont plan on owning a blu-ray player in this lifetime. Bad enough we have to pay $59.99 plus for next gen games. Paying $29.99 for blu-ray movies is proposterus IMO.:mad:

[ilnadmy]

As long as I have a PS3 why not get some Blu-ray movies? And since Casino Royale is my second-favorite movie after Gladiator (which I own on DVD), I figure why not? It's not being released 'till March anyway.

[Glockstar]

Sure... then after that, celebrate and get drunk and stupid and leave your gates open.

[ilnadmy]

That would make for an interesting day.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

It's really sad on HDDVD's part. The production cost of HDDVD is significant less than Blu-ray. Yet, they couldn't take advantage of that. Honestly, why bother get HDDVD or Blu-ray at htis point? I am not willing to pay 20 bucks for movies. And why pay the same price for the weaker product?

I've had my HD-DVD player for a while now and it is clear that BLU-RAY does not offer any significant benefit. Projectorcentral.com has a great article explaining why BLU-RAY is really not a better product. So what if BLU-RAY has theoretically more starage space when it is not even necessary for watching a 1080p movie anyway. And BLU-Ray for games is a huge joke. How many years are developers going to spend trying to use up all that storage space. 50 gigs is overkill right now and at a high price it is truly ridiculous to even go that route. HD-DVD is half the price for the player and offers virtually the same experience.

Why bother getting HD-DVD or BLU-RAY? If you want to see the best picture you have ever seen anywhere or hear the best audio you have ever heard in a movie anywhere you will buy them ASAP. I can vouch that watching Superman (the original) in HD even downconverted to 720p by my projector was one of the most thrilling experiences I've ever had in home theater. Good picture quality for an old movie and absolutely great sound in Dolby Digital Plus just blew me away. The sound is so crisp it is ridiculous. Dolby True HD is supposed to be even better. It sure sounded good in Batman begins.

Try this article for further clarification.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/retailing_HD-DVD_Blu-ray.htm

[folken001]

I've had my HD-DVD player for a while now and it is clear that BLU-RAY does not offer any significant benefit. Projectorcentral.com has a great article explaining why BLU-RAY is really not a better product. So what if BLU-RAY has theoretically more starage space when it is not even necessary for watching a 1080p movie anyway. And BLU-Ray for games is a huge joke. How many years are developers going to spend trying to use up all that storage space. 50 gigs is overkill right now and at a high price it is truly ridiculous to even go that route. HD-DVD is half the price for the player and offers virtually the same experience.

Why bother getting HD-DVD or BLU-RAY? If you want to see the best picture you have ever seen anywhere or hear the best audio you have ever heard in a movie anywhere you will buy them ASAP. I can vouch that watching Superman (the original) in HD even downconverted to 720p by my projector was one of the most thrilling experiences I've ever had in home theater. Good picture quality for an old movie and absolutely great sound in Dolby Digital Plus just blew me away. The sound is so crisp it is ridiculous. Dolby True HD is supposed to be even better. It sure sounded good in Batman begins.

Try this article for further clarification.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/retailing_HD-DVD_Blu-ray.htm
I don't usually care for movies as much as some here might be. I just think it's only logical to support blu-ray when both format costing the same. Are xbox360 games cheaper? Nope. Are HDDVD movies that much cheaper. No again. So why pay relative the same price for much less storage space? It doesn't really make much sense to me.

Why bother buying any of them? You can just download them. There are torrents sites for HD movies now. Each movie is like 10 gig or so . And you can also tweak your player to upscale. It's just as good as those blu-ray and hddvd movies.

I read the link you have provided and it seems to me the whole article is saying yes blu-ray is better but the advantage isn't relevent. But my point of view is if we are paying pretty much the same for each movie we buy, then why not buy the one that offers more? Yes, the price of the blu-ray player is an issue. However, I think it's an issue that will go away in half year or so. And that would be irrelevent to the whole issue becuase who honestly think the mainstream would adapt either format over DVDs right now?

[joquito]

I don't usually care for movies as much as some here might be. I just think it's only logical to support blu-ray when both format costing the same. Are xbox360 games cheaper? Nope. Are HDDVD movies that much cheaper. No again. So why pay relative the same price for much less storage space? It doesn't really make much sense to me.

Why bother buying any of them? You can just download them. There are torrents sites for HD movies now. Each movie is like 10 gig or so . And you can also tweak your player to upscale. It's just as good as those blu-ray and hddvd movies.

I read the link you have provided and it seems to me the whole article is saying yes blu-ray is better but the advantage isn't relevent. But my point of view is if we are paying pretty much the same for each movie we buy, then why not buy the one that offers more? Yes, the price of the blu-ray player is an issue. However, I think it's an issue that will go away in half year or so. And that would be irrelevent to the whole issue becuase who honestly think the mainstream would adapt either format over DVDs right now?

Actually the article points to the fact that 1080p is relevant to the source, not the display. So as long as the source is 1080p, which both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs both are encoded in, then the output of the player doesn't matter. So the idea that Blu-ray players outputting 1080p is somehow superior to HD-DVD players output of 1080i is complete nonsense.

HD programs currently being broadcasted are shot using 1080i cameras. Once productions teams start shooting with 1080p cameras, every HDTV will get a boost in picture quality regardless of the resolution of the TV.