Naughty Dog: Uncharted 2 Couldn't Possibly Run On Xbox 360
We just got finished telling you why Naughty Dog's Uncharted 2: Among Thieves needed to be atop your holiday wish list, and now, we learn about even more crucial and enticing details.
In a recent ArsTechnica interview with Naughty Dog co-president Christophe Balestra, the first words out of his mouth are, "I guarantee that this game couldn't be working on Xbox 360. It would be impossible. I'm 100 percent sure of this." It seems the team has really worked hard to push the PlayStation 3; they've completely filled up the Blu-Ray disc to "100%" as there is 25GB of data and as Balestra says, "we're using every single bit of it." As for the development aspect, he says they've been able to make it so the player will go through "the entire game without loading," and Uncharted 2 won't have a mandatory install, either. Balestra goes on to talk about the capability of the PS3's internal capabilities:
"The ability to use the RSX [the PS3's graphics processor] to draw your pixels on the screen, then you use the Cell to do gameplay and animations—we kind of took the step of using the Cell process to help the RSX . All those things are done on the Cell processor. It really helps us getting that quality of lighting per pixel; the amount of computation is pretty crazy."
And because Naughty Dog is a first-party developer and only designs games for PlayStation hardware, Balestra said they've "invested a lot of time in maximizing the power of the machine. That's our job, to make the PS3 shine." Well, shine it will once Uncharted 2 is in the disc drive. Anybody have any doubts now?
Related Game(s): Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
8/27/2009 Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (79 posts)
ace_boon_coon
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 1:21:51 PM
napoleon85
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 10:53:48 AM
Reply
OtisFeelgood
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 10:56:50 AM
Reply
DIsmael85
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 11:24:18 AM
Jawknee
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 11:38:36 AM
Reply
ThePearlJamer
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 12:22:26 PM
Jawknee
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 12:54:42 PM
NiteKrawler
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 2:17:48 PM
Jawknee
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 2:41:50 PM
www
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 4:18:56 PM
I tried the Batman AA demo, I've watched reviews but I still don't like. Here's hoping I get my hands on DiRT 2. The graphics is bad-ass, the gritty sand, realistic water, fully-detailed cockpits and nice damages makes it look very attractive.
Blood_Haze
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 4:52:47 PM
mexgeo86
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 11:47:56 AM
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 12:13:48 PM
ThePearlJamer
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 12:24:44 PM
OhYessss
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 1:30:51 PM
NiteKrawler
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 2:19:57 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 3:23:23 PM
BTNwarrior
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 1:05:24 PM
NiteKrawler
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 2:22:37 PM
Scarecrow
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 2:31:59 PM
Titch1794
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 3:15:55 PM
ThePearlJamer
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 12:23:01 PM
BlinkBoy
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 12:40:22 PM
www
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 12:49:15 PM
BeezleDrop
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 12:38:17 PM
Reply
Highlander
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 12:53:30 PM
Reply
This is what Cell is for. The memory architecture of the PS3 which features the RSX as a memory controller as well as GPU is set up to allow the Cell to shoulder some of the load with graphics.
The array of SPEs on the Cell is something that the 360's CPU cannot match, so in that sense Naughty Dog is correct, the 360 cannot handle this. This is also a perfect example of how the correct approach to maximize a game on the PS3 is not the same as the correct approach for the 360. Which is why multi-platform games that are built first on one platform, often do not suit the other.
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 3:27:15 PM
Jawknee
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 2:43:21 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 3:29:00 PM
Alienange
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 7:12:04 PM
mustang750r
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 2:57:49 PM
Reply
RadioHeader
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 3:16:20 PM
Reply
Jawknee
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 3:35:50 PM
Highlander
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 4:14:03 PM
I think that we, as gamers, have become way too picky. The kind of flaws seen in games like Uncharted are insignificant, and yet every time there is a new game some wannabe reviewer trying to make a name will complain bitterly about these graphical glitches.
It's like complaining about games that only run at 30 frames per second. It wasn't so long ago that console gamers were content with 30 frames per second at best.
we're too demanding and fickle. An otherwise excellent game could be damned by some minor graphical glitch that becomes a catalyst for criticism. A healthy dose of perspective might help.
Last edited by Highlander on 8/27/2009 4:14:47 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 4:38:02 PM
Jawknee
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 4:54:09 PM
By the way, I never damned the game. I loved Drakes Fortune. Some just notice things more then others. I never watched a or read review for Uncharted. I went off sheer word of mouth and noticed the tearing all by my self.
Last edited by Jawknee on 8/27/2009 4:58:26 PM
RadioHeader
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 6:51:20 PM
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 12:38:04 AM
Fane1024
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 3:52:37 PM
...which is why I praise R&CFTOD so much.
I find that graphical glitches remind me that I'm playing a game and I would prefer total immersion.
I am NOT saying that it ruins Uncharted, however, and not just because I haven't played it yet (will buy GH version soon or get it for my birthday).
Last edited by Fane1024 on 8/28/2009 3:56:03 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 3:30:18 PM
Reply
MadKatBebop
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 4:59:22 PM
Reply
LegendaryWolfeh
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 5:49:32 PM
Reply
Jed
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 12:45:26 AM
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 12:50:25 AM
Sad to see. Ars was better than this.
johnld
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 9:53:27 PM
Reply
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 12:40:03 AM
Fane1024
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 4:00:37 PM
Last edited by Fane1024 on 8/28/2009 4:02:14 PM
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 6:39:07 PM
I'm not saying RSX is any better or worse than Xenos but since Xenos was shipping in consoles before RSX was announced as ready to go...
Anyway, Neither RSX or Xenos are outdated in he same sense as a PC GPU get's outdated. Both are perfectly fit for their intended role, and neither has been replaced by a more advanced version. Sure new GPUs have come and gone in PCs, but these are not PCs.
I will say though that the Xenos features something that should/could have been an incredible feature. The embedded DRAM and 'free' FSAA. Since the embedded DRAM buffer is only 10MB it's not actually large enough to perform FSAA at 720p, 1080i or 1080p without the developers doing some tiling. Which is why a lot of games on the 360 render below 720p keeping the resolution within the capability of the 'free' FSAA and embedded DRAM. The thing is that they knew that the 360 would be driving 720p and 1080i displays (at least) so there was no reason to design the embedded DRAM and free FSAA to a resolution below 720p.
johnld
Thursday, September 03, 2009 @ 3:28:29 PM
___________
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 3:11:01 AM
Reply
i was hoping that U2 will be the second game to hit 50GBs.
disappointing its only using 25.
they just proved what i said the other day, developers are having such a hard time with the ps3 because there using the RSX to do the graphics alone.
its not powerful enough it has to be backed up by the cell, thats how it was designed, each component piggybacks the next.
anyone else noticed that when comparing multiplat games the 360 version normally looks darker, richer colors.
and higher detail with close ups, like batman just standing there close to the screen.
but when it comes to background objects like looking in the distance the ps3 version normally looks more detailed.
interesting.
Ricochet
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 5:32:37 AM
Reply
Come on, don't say sh*t about the 360 unless you actually tried porting to it and compare. Last I checked, porting to the 360 wasn't a hassle (especially with your blu-ray comments that can be countered with "multi-discs)...
Christophe, keep your mouth shut and let your games do the talking. Uncharted 2 already blows anything we've seen this console generation. Leave the flame-baiting to fanboys.....
Fane1024
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 4:05:05 PM
Deleted User
Monday, August 31, 2009 @ 8:29:30 PM
Deleted User
Monday, August 31, 2009 @ 8:23:42 PM
DGo8
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 6:05:44 AM
Reply
Deleted User
Monday, August 31, 2009 @ 8:28:23 PM
King James
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 12:21:22 PM
Reply
Highlander
Friday, August 28, 2009 @ 6:40:36 PM
Taha1
Sunday, December 27, 2009 @ 8:09:51 AM
Reply
1.Simply not powerful enough.The Ps3 processor is twice as powerful and has faster data transfer(to the FSB)[very important]. Also a lot of people are buying into the quotes all over the internet that the xbox's gpu is more powerful. They are both just as powerful but the rsx uses more advanced technology and has faster data transfer from ram. So the ps3 also has a faster ram and uses better ram technology.
2.HD-DVD's can only hold 15gb on the xbox while dual layer blu-rays can hold 50gb accounting for more detailed bigger environments.
The only area the xbox is better is the fact that loading times are faster as it has a 12xdvd drive whilst the ps3 has a 2x blu-ray drive. But i'd still rather have blu-ray. xbox live used to be better but psn is now just as good as you can invite people to games and join games and start parties and chats just as easily. AND the people are better/nicer.(also less geeks and hackers)
I just wish we had GOW:(
There are some other things i'd also like to clear up.
People who like pc's say that they don't play on consoles because there is no mouse and keyboard but the ps3 supports full sized normal mouses and keyboards.(which I find pointless for games as controllers are much better, but good for browsing and linux[free windows alternative])
You can also install windows on the ps3 and use the built in browser which is fantastic!
And others say pc graphics are better and that's true. But only because they have to be compatible with the shitty xbox.
And pc games will always have better high end graphics because developers know they are upgradable but a pc which could run games with graphics like that(for e.g. crysis) would cost nearly 10 times the ps3(roughly £3000).
Some of you might say im exaggerating but nobody as of yet has been able to run crysis at the highest possible settings on an unmodified pc(factory pc).And some alienwares cost over £3000.
Also ps3 is cheaper than xbox as for xbox if you want a wireless controller you have to pay. If you want rechargeable batteries you gotta pay. Same for charger and play and charge kit and wireless adapter and hd-drive and so on.
But with ps3 all controllers are wireless with built in batteries and if you want to charge it you plug it in to any usb device (tellies,ps3) and you can play wihile charging using the FREE provided mini-usb cables.
Also wireless is built in and so is bluetooth and you get a high end blu-ray player with firmware updates and hd output with up to 5.1ch surround sound.
Also pc lovers say you get 3d on pc's. You can on ps3 too. In an upcoming firmware update it will be incorporated and all you need are stereoscopic glasses !!
I would still rather have an xbox or a pc than a pc(for gaming). As with xboxlive and psn you can easily see and chat to all of your friends and arrange games and such but PS3 IS KING!!!
I could rant on forever which you probably think I have(lol).
xS7SxSNIPER
Saturday, November 27, 2010 @ 8:47:35 AM
Reply

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves









mexgeo86
Reply
Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 10:47:46 AM