Adventure Forums - View Single Post

EvoG · 11-29-2006, 07:54 PM

*sigh*

Okay question time:

What does a truly next gen experience entail? Let me help you craft your answer a bit:

We already have 1080p on the 360, so its not resolution...
At the very MOST you have equal amounts of memory, with the difference being mainly the 360's unified 512megs vs. the PS3's split 256GDDR3 and 256XDR mem, so it will never be increased texture resolutions...
Between the two CPU structures, the 360 (Triple Core PowerPC) exceeds in general processing over the six threads (3Corex2threadsPerCore) while the Cell(Single Core PowerPC + 6 SPE {8 SPE - 1 for Redundancy and - 1 for OS}) exceeds in math calculations(particle systems), but is unable to do much of anything else such as AI (remember Jades Assassins Creed comment about AI superior on the 360?) as an SPE doesn't have branch prediction(unresolved instruction execution), so while the PS3 has an advantage of being able to have 6 distinct "threads" (360 requires that an entire cpu be used despite having 2 separate threads) it isn't decidely 'better' in any significant way and ultimately is pretty much the same as the 360...so its not any great leaps in raw power like the 360 was over the first Xbox...
HD Video during gameplay is an archaic throwback to the days of FMV in the early 90's when in-game graphics just weren't suitable for 'narrative' and storytelling, so it can't POSSIBLY be HD video FMV...

How is it a good thing that people(programmers) already pretty smart in their own right, have to "figure out" how to program this machine to do what is easily done on the 360?

The PS2 had twice the performance of the Xbox, but it ended up 'under performing' in this capacity due to its complexity. 10 years people, and we've pretty much max'd the ratio of capability to technology. Its arguable that given a bit more memory, the PS2 could be capable of more, but we'll never know now...

Point is? Both machines are ultimately the same. 360 will have better AI while the PS3 will have better particle smoke and vertex processing...but who cares? I'm having a blast with the Wii and its lack of spectacular graphics is not affecting me one bit. How do you explain that? Is it perhaps that graphics do not make for better gameplay? Is it possible that 'next-gen' does NOT mean more polys, higher resolution textures, faster mpeg decompression and HD output?! How can this be! Is it POSSIBLE, that next-gen should gives us gameplay experiences we haven't had before? Dead Rising couldn't have been done on last gen consoles, so the experience of wading through hundreds of undead in my opinion is a great example of next-gen. Its easy to understand; you have greater power, and instead of simply delivering the same experience with greater fidelity, Capcom offered to derive gameplay from that writhing mass of undead...using that power to generate those hordes that are far more compelling than if we only had 10 zombies but with 2048x2048 textures multiplied by diffuse, spec, spec color, translucency and normals.

No the PS3 isn't going to OMG OvARWH3Lm you with next-gen goodness, auto-magically next Christmas or the year after that or the year after that. The concern we have is that because its the same as the 360 but more complicated to program for (can we HONESTLY doubt John Carmack on this?!?), that Sony's priorities are drastically skewed away from gaming. That as Trep put it, they're tossing all the eggs in one basket because of a desperate need for BluRay to succeed, but not as a truly beneficial medium for games delivery, but for LICENSING. Cell? Licensing for supercomputing in the science sector. This was less about games as much as a grab-all by Sony, and its obvious and its annoying.

Cheers

11-29-2006, 07:54 PM	#309
EvoG FlipFrame Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 471	sigh Okay question time: What does a truly next gen experience entail? Let me help you craft your answer a bit: We already have 1080p on the 360, so its not resolution... At the very MOST you have equal amounts of memory, with the difference being mainly the 360's unified 512megs vs. the PS3's split 256GDDR3 and 256XDR mem, so it will never be increased texture resolutions... Between the two CPU structures, the 360 (Triple Core PowerPC) exceeds in general processing over the six threads (3Corex2threadsPerCore) while the Cell(Single Core PowerPC + 6 SPE {8 SPE - 1 for Redundancy and - 1 for OS}) exceeds in math calculations(particle systems), but is unable to do much of anything else such as AI (remember Jades Assassins Creed comment about AI superior on the 360?) as an SPE doesn't have branch prediction(unresolved instruction execution), so while the PS3 has an advantage of being able to have 6 distinct "threads" (360 requires that an entire cpu be used despite having 2 separate threads) it isn't decidely 'better' in any significant way and ultimately is pretty much the same as the 360...so its not any great leaps in raw power like the 360 was over the first Xbox... HD Video during gameplay is an archaic throwback to the days of FMV in the early 90's when in-game graphics just weren't suitable for 'narrative' and storytelling, so it can't POSSIBLY be HD video FMV... *How is it a good thing* that people(programmers) already pretty smart in their own right, have to "figure out" how to program this machine to do what is easily done on the 360?** The PS2 had twice the performance of the Xbox, but it ended up 'under performing' in this capacity due to its complexity. 10 years people, and we've pretty much max'd the ratio of capability to technology. Its arguable that given a bit more memory, the PS2 could be capable of more, but we'll never know now... Point is? Both machines are ultimately the same. 360 will have better AI while the PS3 will have better particle smoke and vertex processing...but who cares? I'm having a blast with the Wii and its lack of spectacular graphics is not affecting me one bit. How do you explain that? Is it perhaps that graphics do not make for better gameplay? Is it possible that 'next-gen' does NOT mean more polys, higher resolution textures, faster mpeg decompression and HD output?! How can this be! Is it POSSIBLE, that next-gen should gives us gameplay experiences we haven't had before? Dead Rising couldn't have been done on last gen consoles, so the experience of wading through hundreds of undead in my opinion is a great example of next-gen. Its easy to understand; you have greater power, and instead of simply delivering the same experience with greater fidelity, Capcom offered to derive gameplay from that writhing mass of undead...using that power to generate those hordes that are far more compelling than if we only had 10 zombies but with 2048x2048 textures multiplied by diffuse, spec, spec color, translucency and normals. No the PS3 isn't going to OMG OvARWH3Lm you with next-gen goodness, auto-magically next Christmas or the year after that or the year after that. The concern we have is that because its the same as the 360 but more complicated to program for (can we HONESTLY doubt John Carmack on this?!?), that Sony's priorities are drastically skewed away from gaming. That as Trep put it, they're tossing all the eggs in one basket because of a desperate need for BluRay to succeed, but not as a truly beneficial medium for games delivery, but for LICENSING. Cell? Licensing for supercomputing in the science sector. This was less about games as much as a grab-all by Sony, and its obvious and its annoying. Cheers