Printable View
Read this about unsatisfied reports on the PS3 development tools:
http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthread...2294&cache=117
What do you think? I hope PS3 still beats the Xbox. If they are ditching region codes (only quickly read this in another thread) then that might put them a little higher.
I cant get the page to load, but I dont think I can rely on a site called dogsonacid tbh
It links to a thread in some forum. The post has a bunch of links to news sites, though. I'll quote it for you.
Some of it is actual details, but some of it seems like the poster's opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some dude on a crappy forum
EDIT: May I also mention that the original PS1 was dubbed impossible develop for and it did just fine. Plus, the only site listed that makes it sound really bad is an Xbox site.
Hehehehehehehe...
Hahahahahahaha
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
o__O
That was random. Care to clarify?
This is one of those "I told you so" moments.
I'm guessing Darth Holmes wants the PS3 to crumble or something. "This is one of those "I told you so" moments? what do you mean?
The links are from actual gaming news sites, they were just collected together, so what do you mean some of it sounded like his opinion? You mean the end part where he added his opinion??
It's not that much of a concern, as you have already said, however, theres no harm in talking about it. There is MORE than one site listed, its not just an xbox site, but if it were, you would have a good reason not to trust it, and as each website basicly stated the same thing, this is not just some random crap.
As for not being able to rely on dogs on acid, that forum is VERY good, regardless of whether these news reports have any significance, and regardless of its name of course. There are many good forums out there that have weird and uninviting names, but personally the name tested my curiosity.
I was referring to the bottom part.. As for him, I'm sure what he's on about.
I've said it before and no doubt I'll have to say it again. Just because you're the opposite of a fanboy doesn't make you any less annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Holmes
that's stupid. The PS3 will do just fine as the playstation has always done. It's going to catch the western and eastern worlds...
thsi is sad....
*punishes himself for posting such an unworthy thread*Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaprice
No seriously Vaprice, this thread is just to talk about it, not speculate whether my reason for posting this thread was valuable or out of sadness lol. :p
For the sake of the lack of conversation about my actual topic, I think I'll open up the topic of this thread to whether Xbox or PS3 will do better, what your thinking of buying and why etc.
Always been PS for me, so I'm goin' with the PS3.
Yeah I can get the 360 for free, and the Revolution will be cheap, so I'm gonna be buying a PS3
I'm sad not for Sony, but for nVidia as they may lose out financially on this.
I'm surprised the PS3 is so hard to develop for as they switched to some open source and/or popular development platforms (such as embedded OpenGL and Cg).
Regardless, things look good for the Xbox360 camp and not as good for the PS3 camp. Only time will tell...
You told someone that PS3 would cost too much money to develop for and would scare small-time developers away which could be potentionally damaging?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Holmes
All I ever head was "NO 2D FIGTERS SUX"
You people all seem to be forgetting the most important point here
Final Fantasy is Playstation based, what's gonna happen if PS3 falls under!?
In Square Enix have to move to Xbox360 I'm gonna die of anger/depression
...me being the mad PS fan that I am
I WILL NOT BUY A PS3!!!
I refuse to buy one. I love the PS2, but that's the limit. The new ps2 games cost up to $60 and the ps3 are going to cost $100, or somewhere in between there.
I don't have the $500 for the ps3.
I don't have 80 to spend on every game. Or one game for that matter.
That should make things pretty even now. Sony always had the advantage before. Maybe now we'll finally witness a fair fight.
Microsoft is bluffing, I know them well. They say the PS3 is nothing compared to the technology they have for the Xbox 360. Bill Gates could do his best but it wont work. I am not falling for it. They know the PS3 is wayyyyy more superior to their Xbox 360. But they have to stop lying! Cause once PS3 comes out, everyone will see for them selves, what sony could really do.
Again, the advantage is very debatable. This does cause Sony to have to fight harder.
For your info, the PS3 is not "wayyyyy more superior" to the Xbox360 at all. It has some advantages and some disadvantages, simple as that. :)
The actual problem with the PS3 apparently is that it is so sophisticated that it causes problems for developing games, and most game companies do not have employees that are sufficiently trained enough. I really doubt Xbox took several gaming news sites under hostage for leverage of posting some false news.
Fair?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
PS2 and PSX were less powerful than their competitors the past two generations, it was unfair for them but they still did the best.
wut does it meen in short?
I should mention that everything you just stated is rumours, nothing more. No US system or game prices have been announced. Most of these rumours have come from Microsoft's statements, not Sony's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse1
In fact, it has been discussed that a release price similar to the PS2 may not be unfeasible..
I already knew/know that the PS3 was/is graphically superior to the 360, but enhancing the graphics doesn't exactly make a game more fun.
"imo they should have just used other peoples chips & media formats imo, rather than trying to make their own and monopolise things too much" it's worth noting that no console in recent years has used it's own chips or media formats. and in fact blu-ray is a sony product.
"I WILL NOT BUY A PS3!!!
I refuse to buy one. I love the PS2, but that's the limit. The new ps2 games cost up to $60 and the ps3 are going to cost $100, or somewhere in between there.
I don't have the $500 for the ps3.
I don't have 80 to spend on every game. Or one game for that matter"
all modern consoles have retailed at £300 with games coming in at £40. this was the same since things went into 32 bits and we got 3d. it shouldn't really change.
Considering that because the Xbox was so unpopular in Japan that part of Microsoft's strategy was to create special booths in which people could try out the Xbox without the potential embarassment of their family and friends seeing them with one, I'd be mildly surprised to say the least if Japanese developers all started falling over themselves to work with Microsoft.
Chances are, the PS3 will still sell millions more than the 360 based on the popularity of the PSone and PS2, and developers know that they'd be fools to miss out on the gold rush.
Not to mention many thought the PS2 was extremely difficult to develop for in the beginning. Frankly, the news stories I've seen show Sony doing a lot more than any other company to help ease companies transition to the new hardware. They've got numerous agreements in place with other companies, including sub licenses for things like the Havok physics engine and the new Unreal engine (which based on everything I've read runs extremely well on the PS3).Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn Rain
More power does more than just improve graphics. It gives developers more freedom to do things like build better AI, larger worlds, realistic physics, and a hell of a lot of other stuff that has a direct effect on gameplay. Yeah graphics are naturally bumped up as well, but there are a lot of things that can be done to benefit gameplay with more powerful hardware. Assuming that graphical improvements are the only thing that results from better hardware is just plain wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Holmes
I was talking about business. Marketshare, the amount of supporting developers. Stuff like that. It doesn't matter how powerful your system is. Its how you market it. Everyone shoulda learned that lesson from Sega :/Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
this is just like that time when hutch lost his job and got kidnapped by a drug dealer!
The AI on PS2/XBox games were probably as good as AI is gonna get. Take Metal Gear Solid 3 for instance, guards see you from a far off distance, they call for backup, you hidesomewhere and they keep looking for you. If something's moved out of place they notice something is up and call for backup.
Or in the Halo games. A pack of enemies run at you, you fire your gun and hit a few shots. Some of the enemies tuck 'n roll for cover while one throws a grenade, and the others just run away in fear.
I don't think a better graphics engine can enhance AI, the only direct gameplay enhancement we get from that is physics. The current gen consoles handle physics just fine.
No one said anything about a graphics engine enhancing AI, a overall more powerfull engine will enhance all those things Vivi22 said.
imo the people on that web site say imo way too much to be taken seriously imo.
.opt
It will not enhance AI at all itself, the game developers and programmers must do that. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Croyles
More CPU power does allow for more calculations to be processed, but that's only 10% of the battle. Actually programming the AI is 90% of the work.
This means i am going Revolution like i planned D:
I am never a big fan of Sony as a company and would rather switch as soon as i can, however that doesnt mean i dont like the games that come out on PS2, its the only reason why i buy them becuase they whore out the 3rd party games. MS i never cared for and probably never will unless something great happened..but even then i dont like MS as a company, the only company i have any sort of respect for my entire time is Nintendo. Maybe a little biased, but i like Nintendo more as a whole company than Sony or MS. The only thing that makes me purchase Sony is the games they whore out deals with to produce, else i probably get Nintendo and wont give a second thought about the others.
Ok your right, sorry, what I meant was that a more powerful CPU can leave some of the way open to better AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuraid
In a documentary about MGS2, the developers said that they devoted about 30% of the CPU for AI calculations, and they still couldn't add everything they wanted. I think we can get much better AI than we have today, if the developers have more CPU power to play around with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Holmes
I sais MGS3, not 2.
Yeah, but the point is I guess that CPU can account for more than 10% of the sophistication of the AI.
I've still seen the A.I. in a lot of games make stupid mistakes. Fact is, I've yet to see a game where enemies work as a unit in a realistic sense and truly adapt to what you do. I've seen games get better at it over the years, but they've got a long way to go. And have a look at what Kojima has said about his hopes for the A.I. for MGS4 http://ps3.ign.com/articles/654/654973p1.html. There are other articles that talk about it as well, but most of them just say the same thing. That would be some pretty innovative stuff if they can pull it off. More powerful hardware makes it much easier to perform complex AI calculations without having to sacrifice in other areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Holmes
I would argue they don't quite frankly. Few games impliment realistic physics as part of the gameplay and it's a shame considering how incredible HL2 was thanks to their excellent implimentation of physics in the core gameplay. The fact is though, physics calculation in a game tend to be very complicated, which is why even in games like HL2 we're a long way from seeing everything in a game being affected realistically by what you do. I mean, honestly imagine how cool it would be in some games if it was possible to interact with everything and have it obey realistic laws of physics. It might make level design a pain, and not everyone would do it, but HL2 proved physics can be fun, and other games and genres could benefit from their implementation. The fact is though, you need really powerful hardware to even pull it off. Physics calculations for every object in a game are way beyond what even the coming generation is capable of because the CPU just can't handle the processing load. This is part of why the physics processing unit story that showed up around the internet months back was pretty important news. If they could catch on, then just like we've got graphics processors to handle the calculations for graphics and effects, we could have a dedicated processor to handle physics. Some would probably scoff at this and say it'll never catch on, or what's the point. I say that the physics gameplay in HL2 was one of the most fun and innovative things I've seen from the industry in years, and I hope it was just the tip of the iceberg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Holmes
That's enough ranting for me I think :D .
Not only physics, but also environmental effects. I'm still looking forward to seeing massively realistic particle systems for water/smoke/fog/sand effects...but this may be long in coming. :(
That's the sort of stuff I look forward to as well with more powerful hardware. Yeah, better graphics are nice, but all of the little things like physics, high levels of interactivity with the environment, environmental effects like what you mentioned, all add up to a more believeable and immersive world. They may not seem like much, but when they're there, they just help suck me into the experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuraid
The MGS3 AI isn't a lot better than in MGS2. MGS3 has better graphics than MGS2 too, and they're using the same old hardware. It wouldn't be easy to put in a lot more AI routines than in the previous game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Holmes
I would say the same. Except Nintendo has a bad habbit of scaring away the developers. For console systems anyway. Nobody wanted to be on N64, and nobody wanted to be on GC. I think I've given up on Nintendo. I ended up having to buy the other systems anyway. I'm honestly bored of 1st party games. Zelda doesn't do it for me, and Mario quit being interesting long ago. So the only good GC games to me are usually multi-platform. Which leaves me with no reason to really be in that court. Unfortunately :/ I would love to support them if they gave me things that I want, as they seem to be the least corrupt of the three companies. They're usually also kinda the stupidest...Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
After Sony and MS compete with the two forefront game systems, slashing prices and losing a lot of money, Nintendo may be the only one left standing. They seem to be taking things carefully and biding their time.
Companies have always taken huge losses on consoles. Often they never see a profit on them until they're ready to start rolling out the new generation, if they see a profit on them at all. Fact is, they make enough money from game sales that they still come out way ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuraid
actually Nintendo always makes money off their hardware, they still make money with every GC they sell, while Microsoft loses money with every X-Box they sell....Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
THE JACKEL
Hey i agree, Nintendo isnt perfect and has screwed up too. One can only hope that they turn back around and become a more viable competitor. I havent lost too much hope in Nintendo yet, at the very least they are still a great innovator and are testing new waters while the other two are only doing existing gaming ways. Who knows, i hate to see Nintendo die, they started the video game reivival, it be a shame i feel.
I've bought just about every system since the mid ninties and I've found out they are basically the same. SNES vs. Genesis, PS vs. N64, PS2 vs. XBOX. I don't see the ps3 and 360 being any different. I didn't count the gamecube and Revolution because they have their own little corner(I have gamecube and plan on getting Revolution also).