PS3 News: Bulletstorm Dev Talks Xbox 360 Hardware Limitation - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Bulletstorm Dev Talks Xbox 360 Hardware Limitation

Hey, we didn't say it. A lot of you have said it before, though, and maybe you've been waiting for a non-PlayStation-affiliated developer to admit it.

During an interview with Xbox Community Network, People Can Fly Creative Director for Bulletstorm Adrian Chmielarz spoke about the limitations of the aging Xbox 360 hardware. In truth, it does indeed affect what they can and can't do, although he says one can still manage to produce quality with that hardware. It's just a matter of ambition. When asked if the 360 was stopping them from doing what they'd like, the director's response was as follows:

"Yes, but any developer in the world will ALWAYS say that, no matter what. We could have 128 GB of RAM and it still won't be enough. Seriously, though, it feels pretty good making games on Xbox 360. As you can see with the exclusive titles like Halo and Gears or multiplatform titles like Bulletstorm, the quality is high enough not to feel any pressure for the next generation. People like the current gen, and I think we still have a lot of room for exploration."

The 360 has been blamed by PlayStation 3 fans for holding developers back and making multiplatform titles...well, less than they could've been. Numerous examples seem to back up that claim, but it's rare to see a developer say anything but, "the game will be identical on both platforms." Maybe it is time to admit it. PS3 exclusives sort of drive the point home.

Related Game(s): Bulletstorm

Tags: bulletstorm, epic, people can fly, ps3, xbox 360

2/2/2011 8:59:11 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (116 posts)

PasteNuggs
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 9:30:04 PM
Reply

About time. I hope this is posted on every 360 fanboy site. They probably still wouldn't believe it.

Agree with this comment 18 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 7:57:16 AM

I see someone thumbed you down (twice) for stating the obvious..

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sirbob6
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 2:37:17 PM

Well the story did come from the Xbox's central hub so hopefully it was spread like a virus to all the other sites.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TheCrazyMerc
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 9:33:07 PM
Reply

PS3=Exclusive AAA Quality Games

^Nuff Said

Agree with this comment 12 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 7:59:23 AM

Agreed. It's why my collection is becoming a strict PS3 exclusive one.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 9:33:50 PM
Reply

Just another thing that is better about the ps3 is it's blu-ray not only do we get better picture for most of our exclusives but the developers can make bigger games due to the space we have. However the only thing i wish the ps3 has to better in the framerate. Being that said most developers should learn from naughty dog or polyphony digital because those 2 are among the best at making the best framerate!!!!

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 9:41:24 PM
Reply

Whenever I'm at a friends and they have a 360 it looks last gen hardware wise, my PS3 still makes me feel the way I did when I first popped a game in on Day1.

Agree with this comment 14 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

thj_1980
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 9:45:09 PM
Reply

I have a bad feeling with microsoft releasing a handheld. It will probably have some sort or cooling fan. HAHAHAH overheating!!!

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 9:50:32 PM

MS is releasing a handheld?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

leatherface
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:06:52 PM

and it will spray mist too.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:03:03 PM

We all know what the story will be.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frylock25
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 9:54:08 PM
Reply

one of my buddies still plays his 360 on a sd tv. i give him shit about it and he doesnt even care. its not the money either because he had a settlement he won and got like 18 grand. he didnt even buy a new tv with that money. half the people i know with 360's have it hooked up to a sd tv. most of them only play CoD.

the exclusives on ps3 cant be touched graphically by anything on the 360. most exclusive games on the 360 look cartoony to me. i guess play what you want but at this point when both systems are the same price why not buy the one that is future proof.

a couple years from now it will show just how old the 360 is getting. ps1 was around at least 5 years. xbox barely made 4 years. ps2 is over 10 years now. 360 im betting will barely make it to 8 years. ps3 will make it probably 12-15 years.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 9:55:34 PM

Ask those guys what it's like being Amish.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

faraga
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:32:29 AM

There are enough people still playing SD on the PS3 as well. Though the only one I personally know is... well, me. But I'm saving up for a nice 32 inch full HD. Will take me at least three more months, but it'll be worth it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frylock25
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 4:12:09 AM

yes faraga you make your point and i wont deny it. the difference is that the one guy i know is perfectly happy to not have a hd tv. some people get stuck in their ways and dont want to upgrade. even though there is something better out there they keep telling themselves they dont need it. you on the other hand do want it and are saving for it. hope you catch my point.

might i recommend a samsung or a lg. im sure you have an idea for what you want already but cant go wrong with either of those.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:09:39 PM

Same here, when I first bought my PS3 and stuck on only playing it on a SDTV. It's a great start to jump and swim to HDTV's now cause they're getting cheaper.

Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 2/3/2011 1:11:57 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 9:54:08 PM
Reply

Well, that was a coy way of saying something without actually saying it.

PS3 owners are probably just dismissed when saying things like this, but it really is the only rational conclusion. Last generation Xbox got the better multiplat games because it was later to market and a more powerful system than PS2, but now its the other way around and poof.

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

frylock25
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:00:22 PM

i have pointed that out too. why the hell cant these developers just make the game better on the better system. laziness is the only excuse. when ND and other companies of their kind can make games that make 360 games look like a pile, that is the only thing i can think of.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LittleBigMidget
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:20:44 PM

@WorldEndsWithMe
Xbox still has better multiplats.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 10 down Disagree with this comment

frylock25
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:22:28 PM

pretty sure that was his point

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:54:19 PM

@LittleBigMidget

Actually, I think it varies from title to title.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:14:05 PM
Reply

I believe that this situation is only going to escalate as time goes on. Microsoft by all accounts has no intention of embracing Blu-Ray. They seek to move directly to digital-only gaming. But the problem is that disc-less consoles are still many years away.

And the next generation of consoles will in all likelihood be here well before then. The next Microsoft console is still going to be using DVDs. Meanwhile 100 GB Blu ray discs are already a reality. The PS3 does not support them but I strongly suspect that the PS4 will.

What this means is that the discrepancy between Playstation exclusives and multi-platform games is likely going to continue to grow not only with this generation but well into the next. Some developers have been complaining about the increasing constraint of the DVDs. And this situation is only made worse by Microsoft's royalty policies (for those unfamiliar Microsoft charges third party developers additional royalties for every disc a game comes on thus giving developers incentive to keep their games smaller). I wonder if any of them would go so far as to rebel and refuse to develop a game on Microsoft's console on account of refusing to compromise their plans for a game. (probably not I would imagine).

I believe that this is at least one of the reasons why Microsoft is investing so heavily in Kinect. I assume that we all remember that 500 million dollar marketing campaign? Microsoft may very well be trying to dodge the issue by doing what Nintendo has done and rely primarily on the casual market.

Of course there is no way of knowing for sure whether or not such a tactic will work. The casual market, unlike the core market, is believed to be fickle and unreliable. We are arguably already seeing signs of this. Right now Kinect is riding on it's wow factor. But the chances are that will not last forever. So I wonder how long it will be before it wears off and what's going to happen when it does.

Of course Microsoft could in theory simply have the next Xbox support larger multi-layer DVDs. However, it is very much uncertain as to whether or not they would actually take such a step as it would likely cut the into the money they make from royalties.

One thing is for sure though. It's certainly going to be very interesting to see how things ultimately play out.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 2/2/2011 10:24:51 PM

Agree with this comment 11 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Eld
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:50:12 PM

I don't believe MS has any intention to relay primarily on casual market.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:55:58 PM

That too is a possibility. But all this Kinect business seems to suggest otherwise.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Cesar_ser_4
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 4:58:40 AM

what ms should have done is, recycle all those hd-dvd drives and discs, we wouldnt get even graphics but at least that way we would at least get more playtime out of multiplat videogames...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:17:49 AM

LookingGlass

Multi-layer DVD, like HD-DVD is a ship that sailed long ago. Bluray is here, and is the High Definition format. Multi-layer BluRay is a near certainty because even with full 1080p3D the data requirements are such that even a standard dual layer BluRay can handle a movie. There is an enhanced format for BluRay that allows more data per layer, and there are several multi-layer formats that require almost no modifications to player mechanicals other than a slight modification to the lens system. PS4 will almost certainly use a BluRay format disc, but the disc will be higher capacity than the current BluRay.

The primary determinant of the needed size of an optical disc format is the data required to encode a two hour movie on a single disk. Unless home video bumps the resolution from 1080p to 2160p (which isn't gonna happen soon since there are so many people who have yet to even make the move to 720p), there is no need to do more than the existing higher capacity and multi-layer BluRay formats can do. Lots of people try to say that download is the way forward, but until you can stream 3D 1080p with lossless audio and no compression artifacts or dropped frames over an Internet link, optical formats are here to stay.

Microsoft hitched itself to the wrong horse, didn't feed the horse well enough, put the horse out to pasture. After that, they decide to hitch their wagon to a mule instead of a carthorse. Sony on the other hand picked a clydesdale, nurtured it, fed it well and has a strong carthorse pulling it's wagon regardless of the load. Don't you love metaphor?

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:16:09 PM

PS4 will be jawbreaking that's for sure, we can assume that it will have these new/read multi-layer blu-ray discs.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kiryu
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:17:58 PM
Reply

Naruto Ultimate ninja storm 2 is a great example.Just check the graphics and art of the characters between one and two.The 1st game ingame was like the anime,the 2nd one the characters outlines are not like an anime character.They don't have many attacks like the 1st one.The Adventure mode is not open world,it's corridor based.Play these games to find out the limitations of the 360.

Why did Dark souls become multi,They should have kept it PS3 Exclusive,dark souls won't be as good as Demon souls in graphics i guarantee.
People won't even buy the game on the 360,Y r these Japanese Dev's doing this???

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BTNwarrior
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:00:23 PM

well don't fear about dark souls because it is being developed as a ps3 sequel in japan, that means that they are basicly building a ps3 exclusive and once they are done with it the publisher is going to send the code to another dev to port it to the 360. Kind of like what EA did with the orange box on ps3, and if you ever had the misfortune to play the ps3 version you know how things like this turn out

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Friday, February 04, 2011 @ 6:48:09 AM

well to be fair, Demon's Souls graphics weren't exactly its high point

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Saturday, February 05, 2011 @ 9:15:46 AM

That game's graphics may not be the best in the industry but they are still quite respectable.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:27:56 PM
Reply

I love how devs are somehow afraid of offending M$, just grow a pair and say it. The 360 is old hardware tech and makes the creation of current multi-platform games difficult because it holds them back.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 8:03:15 AM

Problem is, MS has disposable money to throw around.

On top of that, their fan base is exceptionally loyal.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

pillz81
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 8:12:12 PM

Exceptionally loyal to a fault.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 10:56:10 PM
Reply

'But it's rare to see a developer say anything but, "the game will be identical on both platforms."'
Isn't that EXACTLY what he says in his answer to the qestion before the one you posted? How developers are now making games look identical on both? We owe it to ourselves to keep things in context.
Both systems produce some fantastic looking games. This is an undeniable fact. I've seen things in Alan Wake that aren't in the majority of PS3 exclusives. True enough, the PS3 does have a few titles that are unmatchable by the 360 in terms of graphics. But even as a diehard supporter of the PS3, I would never claim that the Xbox is holding games back. Especially when you factor in the money it costs to produce a game that fills a Blu Ray. Cost alone would inhibit such games from being in abundance before blame could be squarely aimed at the 360.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:03:59 PM

well said Porkchop ;)
We both thought alike on this.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:16:02 PM

You know, it would seem that on any gaming platform there are actually few games that actually push the limits of what that platform is capable of. This is why I believe that your mention of Alan Wake is a moot point.

But fair enough. The limitations of the 360 may not be the only factor at work here. But they are very likely a factor nevertheless.

Although incidentally money may not be as big a factor as you might think. There is the practice of teaming up with large and wealthy publishers for example.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 2/2/2011 11:23:17 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:35:52 PM

And besides, this is not just about graphics. This is also about content.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:38:53 PM

From a man that runs his own business, trust me, money is ALWAYS a factor.

And how is Alan Wake moot, but bringing up the PS3 exclusives is fair game?

But the gentleman in the interview NEVER says the 360 is holding anything back. He says something similar to what I have said here before because technology is not even close to mirroring the human imagination. All games are 'limited'.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:52:13 PM

And as I've always said, I trust in developers. They are what really matter to this industry. They are smart enough to work around limitations and bring us great experiences. To say that the 360 doesn't have full, lengthy, and satisfying experiences is just immature.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:53:55 PM

I never said that money wasn't a factor. Just perhaps not as big a factor as one might think. At least not in the video game industry anyway. The issue of money can be dealt with like for example in the way that I pointed out.

And I was afraid that you might not understand. I guess it's my fault for not being clear enough on this. Alan Wake may be one of the best looking games on the 360. But saying that it's better looking than some PS3 exclusives is irrelevant because as I said it would seem that on any gaming platform there are actually few games that actually push the limits of what that platform is capable of.

It's like this. Suppose a man wins a race. But the other runners in the race weren't actually trying to win. Therefore the man's victory doesn't actually mean anything.

And I wasn't actually talking about the interview or the man in it. I was talking about the issue in general.

One may be able to trust in developers. Unfortunately however developers are not the only ones in control in the video game industry. There are also manufacturers and publishers with perhaps questionable practices and/or conflicting interests to contend with.



Last edited by Looking Glass on 2/2/2011 11:58:29 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:33:48 AM

Well, I said in my first post that there are few games on the PS3 that are graphically unmatched by the 360. But if you take those 4 or 5 games vs the hundreds of games that are available on the market, why is it such a big deal?

The conversation on this page is implying that if a game is not developed exclusively for the Playstation 3, it's somehow diminished. Yet, by your own admission in your analogy, not every game, including some already exclusive to the PS3 , is striving for that pinnacle set by those select few.

As far as content, the multi disc method, however archaic, has been sufficient to bring us great games since the days of the PS1. I don't mind switching discs, if need be.



Agree with this comment 5 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:01:23 AM

The point is that the 360 isn't as capable as the PS3. It's bar is set lower. Therefore any game on the 360, exclusive or multi-platform, is going to ultimately be constrained by that limit. And that same limit is not present on the PS3.

But of course there are games that don't try to be graphical and/or technical heavy hitters. Games that don't aim for high technical accomplishment or prowess. And that's perfectly alright. There is absolutely nothing wrong or shameful about that.

However, there are also games that do lean heavily on the technical side of things. Games that do try to really take advantage of the technology. That's when the 360's limits come into play, especially with regard to multi-platform games.

Don't get me wrong. These games can certainly still be really great games, limitations or no limitations. However the point is that even so these games, however great they may be, are still not going to be as great as they could be if they were exclusive to the PS3.

And on top of that there is also the issue of Microsoft's multiple disc policies to take into account.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:04:15 AM

Eh, the devs continue to talk out both sides of their mouth. I'm more inclined to listen to the ones who were pissed that they had to chop up their game for a DVD since it has the ring of truth. As for the hardware, yeah SE finally admitted they had to cut things off FFXIII to fit it into the architecture of the 360. If the inferior processing power and DVD gimping is in effect for multiplats I can't see how anyone could conclude anything other than the fact that one holds the other back. I'll let you figure out which is which.

It isn't maturity, it's simple math.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 2/3/2011 1:05:45 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:07:42 AM

Of course the 360 is holding games back. At least in regards to multiplatform development; as proven by the superior PS3 exclusives, the PS3 is capable of something the 360 isn't. Hence, logically speaking, developers that have to make the SAME product for both platforms will inevitably miss the capabilities of one.

It's why exclusives on all platforms are usually the cream of the crop, and it certainly is not a moot point to say that only a few PS3 exclusives outstrip the rest of the competition. The point is that it's possible. If all the greatest devs in the world opted to design games only for the PS3, we could potentially have 10 Uncharted-like games a year. So yes, it's hurting us.

This isn't to say ALL multiplats would be better on the PS3; they'd actually be better if they were exclusive to most any platform (excepting the Wii). And some devs really aren't familiar enough with the PS3 hardware. But in the end, when one piece of hardware is far more powerful and capable than the other, and one has to make a game look and play the same on both...the conclusions are clear.

Agree with this comment 11 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:29:54 AM

@LG MS does not charge for multi disc games. That's a fact.

@Ben If you don't believe that if Naughty Dog or Santa Monica were given the 360 they couldn't come up with a similar experience and take advantage of THAT systems strengths, as talented as they are, you are looking at this backwards. And to say the PS3 is FAR more capable than the 360 is, well, that's your opinion. The tech numbers certainly don't match that claim.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 10 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:43:48 AM

Well that's a point of contention right there.

But even putting that aside my point still stands.


And with regard to your response to Ben, I don't know if he was referring specifically to the PS3 in his last sentence. He could have simply been bringing up a hypothetically situation. But even if he was referring to the PS3 there is another issue.

With regard to your last two sentences. That doesn't seem to be a particularly solid claim because it depends entirely on how you define "far".

Last edited by Looking Glass on 2/3/2011 1:50:47 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 2:02:56 AM

@ World

FF13 is an exception. You don't see game of that magnitude developed that often. And you show me where SE admitted that they cut content BECAUSE of the 360's limitations. That an assumption. No matter how many times you repeat that, it will not make it fact.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 2:09:44 AM

Square-Enix would never admit to that. Let's say hypothetically that it is indeed true. Would Square-Enix openly admit to it? No, of course not. Why would they do that? What would they have to gain from that? The answer is nothing. It could only hurt them.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 2:29:36 AM

@porkchop
actually microsoft does charge for multi disc. that is a fact. i forgot who said it before but thats exactly why multidisc games end up being only 2 discs. microsoft doesnt charge much for the second disc but the cost of going to 3 discs and up increases. they pay microsoft some kind of additional fee for each disc past 2. thats the reason ff13 went only up to 3 discs. final fantasy 13 fit into 3 discs because it was compressed so much to make it fit onto dvds. if they werent being charged more per disc, then they couldve just released the game on as many dvds as they wanted uncompressed like the ps3 version is and there shouldnt be as big a difference between the two versions.

EDIT: heres the article with john carmack saying that they have to pay additional licensing fees for multidisc games.

http://www.1up.com/news/quakecon-carmack-dishes-dirt-sony

Last edited by johnld on 2/3/2011 2:34:56 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 2:54:22 AM

And the guy that was the Senior Designer for Rage came out shortly therafter and said that was not true and Carmack had made a mistake. I remember that whole thing.

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1001

There you go.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 6:45:39 AM

@PCG
Where were you when Naughty Dog and dev's like Jaffe talked about their love affair with Sony and how Sony makes it possible for them to excel??

And again, the point isn't that there are only a couple of PS3 exclusives that cannot be matched on the 360. The point is that it's POSSIBLE to make a game on the PS3 better than the 360 is capable of.

All this debate about what Alan Wake point is moot... the REAL moot point is trying to rationalize by saying you can make a game that is multiplat look identical... Well... of COURSE it's possible! As long as it can be done at high efficiency on the weakest link, it can be done on the better system easily. Only thing is, people forget that putting it on different systems is extra work that often gets left partially undone.


But hey... I'll lay down and take your point as long as you can provide me with one solitary multiplat that is better than PS3 exclusives like God of War 3, Little Big Planet 2, Killzone 2 (and 3), Uncharted 2, Gran Turismo 5, etc. etc. etc.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 8:17:08 AM

I am far from being an expert in the field of computer related tech, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that one Blu Ray equals 3-4 DVD's.

As a publisher, do you really think they want to change packaging and pay Microsoft's additional charge for having more then one disc? Especially when they can get away with not doing so?

As a developer, does it not make more sense to build your game on one disc, and not break it up into 3-5? Look at FF13. Why don't we have more games like that on the 360? It costs to much money.

Considering that Killzone 3 has over 43G one one Blu Ray, there isn't anyone here who can't acknowledge the time and money associated with putting the 43G KZ3 on a 9G DVD.

Keeping on this train of thought, how many great multiplatform games would be that much better if the studios were allowed to fill a Blu Ray disc up? First game that comes to mind is Elder Scrolls V. If it's one DVD, all I am going to do is laugh.

Last edited by maxpontiac on 2/3/2011 8:20:07 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 8:57:01 AM

That second article smacks of damage control spin. And from what I've heard that was not an isolated incident. Someone saying something embarrassing to Microsoft only to quickly and hastily backtrack. This has happened more than once. It's not hard to do the math.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 2/3/2011 9:04:30 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 9:26:14 AM

@Underdog15
I'm not saying that MS is anywhere close to being the gaming company that Sony is. I believe they never will be. Sony has a completely different culture(sometimes. would have loved more HR Chronicles) which is why I appreciate them. But that is not what is being discussed here.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'better'? Are you speaking in terms of graphics or in overall depth and gameplay? In terms of overall depth, Bioshock, MW2, Halo Reach (I know it's exclusive bu check out the many created Forge gametypes BEFORE you do a uninformed response), and plenty other FPS are better games than Killzone 2. Castlevania is a deeper and more expansive game than GoW3, IMO. Hell, GOw2 was a deeper more expansive game than GoW3. LBP2 counts soley on what the great community creates but that can easily be done on the 360 if that great gameplay was also put onto the PSP. GT5 is moot because it's a 100 million dollar game that's focused soley on cars. A once in a six year experience. In terms of graphics, yes, the PS3 is unmatched in a FEW cases. I've agreed with that. To say that GTA4, AC2/ACB, Dead Space 2(from what I hear from friends) and all of the other fantastic multiplats don't provide experiences close (and exceeding, depending on personal preference) to exclusives on EITHER system is just ridiculous.

The problem is you're patting your system/company on the back, so much so that an article on Xbox site is now used as fodder to make you feel right or superior. Sure, it can lead to great debates but we all end up talking in circles.

I enjoy games in whatever form I can possibly play them. I don't care about which console they are on. Besides my family and a successful year of business, nothing pleases me more than unwrapping a new experience to dive into. I would never limit which avenue I can get that on, especially because of a few specs. They are just numbers. lol. Ultimately, I cannot force anyone to feel the same as I do.

I look at my Wii and it is embarrassed in terms of graphics, but if you compare the depth and gameplay(MOST important aspect of any game) of Goldeneye 007 vs. Blood Stone 007 done on the big boys, Goldeneye wins by a landslide. Not because the Wii is the better system, but because the DEVELOPER made a better game, even with the Wii's graphic shortcomings. I could go back and pick fifty or more games in gaming history that are better games than what we have today on more 'advanced' systems. The systems are meaningless. It's like praising Capote's(doing my yearly read of 'In Cold Blood'; he just popped in) typewriter instead of him. My point is, you should be patting the devs on the back. They are the real stars of the industry.


Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 9:45:37 AM

Ah yes. The whole "can't we all just get along" and "no more console war" bit.

There's nothing wrong with that idea in itself. But it would really only work if the playing field was all fair and level. The problem is that it isn't.

And besides, competition helps drive the industry. The desire to do better than competitors encourages companies to make better games. And fan rivalries help to facilitate better sales. Which of course in turn helps the companies.

In short, this competition between companies and fanbases is generally good for business, which in turn is generally good for consumers.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 2/3/2011 9:47:34 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 9:52:59 AM

Thanks for the Rage/Carmack URL Porkchop. For years now I used Carmack's royalty thing as an indicator why devs wouldn't wan't to use multiple discs for 360. I guess it has more to do with the resource expense.
I do disagree with a point in the article, though. He says the PS3 streams data slower than 360. That can't be the case when game assets are being streamed from the HDD. Many higher quality PS3 games do that. And also intelligent BD disc design has shown, more recently, like SSF4, that the BD-ROM can out perform the 360 in disc streaming.

Last edited by Temjin001 on 2/3/2011 9:53:26 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 9:59:12 AM

i dont have time to look up the article, but SE did say it. Only Highlander can explain the reason your tech reasoning is out of wack. But the point isn't important enough to me to bicker about so I'll just let it go.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:09:15 AM

Not to go back in time on this discussion but Alan Wake would probably have faired better on PS3. That game's strength resides with post processing effects (particles, lighting, etc) which is something the PS3's SPU's are excellent at. The devs could've offloaded a ton of those bandwidth sapping tasks from the GPU and dumped them on the CELL.

As for another point. I do agree that gameplay is king.
I've said if before, but I love Halo's gameplay.
I can't think of another single player FPS shooter that presents so many variables by way of weaponry, special items, enemy types and behavior, vehicles, and open level design than Halo does. I absolutely love loading up a level and thinking up a half dozen different ways to approach one obstacle. I just don't feel that from other FPS games to the same extent as Halo.
As for presentational quality. KZ2 (and I'm sure KZ3) is really hard to top. It looks amazing and offers some great quality cover based fire fight.

ANd to get a little more on topic, I think Halo could be made "better" on PS3 if it was exclusively optimized. Who wouldn't want more AI, physics calculations? Who wouldn't want more storage space for textures? Who wouldn't want layers of lighting and post processing effects afforded by the cell? Granted, I think it be more of an incremental increase to the Halo experience rather than a largely evolutionary one, but an enhancement nonetheless.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:32:36 AM

Yeah, Temjin, I disagreed with the slow streaming comment, too. I wish I knew more about the game development process to fully understand why some developers can achieve optimal BD streaming and some cannot, even among some PS3 exclusives. Though, those are typically from Japan, I was amazed when FF13 didn't have an install at all and runs fast. SE is talented. Maybe for those who can't, it's status quo programming clashing with unique architecture.

And I definitely agree that games optimized for PS3 would look better. But you and I definitely agree on the gameplay being paramount, as well. I don't think Alan Wake or Halo on the PS3 would have been a better overall games, but instead, better looking ones.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:47:24 AM

It's not just a matter of visuals. As Temjin001 indicated there are also the issues of AI and physics calculations and the like.


But now let me be more specific with regard to the whole Rage/Carmack controversy. On one hand you have Carmack saying one thing then you get Willits turning around and saying another thing. So the question is who to believe.

Willits has no credibility here. The simple reason for that is the inherent conflict of interests. id has nothing to gain and much to lose from getting on the bad side of Microsoft as well as the 360 fanbase. It's the same as the situation with Square-Enix and FFXIII that I already brought up.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 2/3/2011 10:51:57 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:53:37 AM

PorkChop: I'm not looking at anything "backwards." I know what great developers can do. I stated very specifically - numerous times - that if a talented team focuses on any given platform, they can make something pretty special.

I merely said they could all do something BETTER with the PS3. Naughty Dog has said a million times they couldn't put Uncharted on the 360. Could they make something great for that system? Sure. Would it be as good as what they could make on the PS3? Not likely. It's just a matter of knowledge and power; some devs that don't know the PS3 might not be able to do that, of course.

I'm not entirely sure what we're disagreeing about. I don't disagree with anything you've said, really.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:38:12 PM

data streaming from BluRay is every bit as fast as necessary - it has to be in order to supply high definition video data at the rate required to feed a 1080p HDMI connection. The myths about DVD performance vs BluRay performance need to be put down before someone starts believing them. Have a look at the actual specification of a 2x BluRay drive which is what is in the PS3. It's plenty fast enough.

As for streaming game data off the disc. I've seen problems with that with the same game on both platforms. There is no problem with the raw speed of the streaming from BluRay (or DVD) it's all about how the streamed data is organized. Poorly laid out, a data stream might force the drive to sweep the heads needlessly back and forth across the disc which interrupts the data stream and causes problems. That's true, BluRay or not.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 2:00:34 PM

@PCG
Before I post an uninformed response? When have I ever done that without also stating that I'm not 100% sure? You need not fear that from me.

And no... I'm not talking about gameplay or any of the subjective arguments you made, because debating those are merely subjective. That new Castlevania game is not great and certainly not better than GOW3 imo. But that's ok, because such arguments (as your FPS one) are merely subjective. And because they are subjective, I don't necessarilly think they are wrong, and I definitely don't think they are without merit!

No, I was purely referring to the development quality of said games. How much data is incorporated into the games, and what are the production values? Those have objective facts about quality and is more the point I am trying to make. And with those points in mind, the PS3 exclusives are king. And I think you agree with that.

Now all these points aren't originally my own, but I am more inclined to agree with the others. If devs were able to take our subjective bests in the gameplay or storyarch components, and develop them with the top notch production values offered by the PS3, then that would leave us with 10 Uncharted quality games, I'm sure!

And I think that's the point people are making. There are wonderful multiplat games. My favorite franchise this generation is Assassin's Creed, in fact! It doesn't have the best production values, but it's SO much fun! (Plus it's a Canadian made game!!!)

But they cannot offer all the PS3 is capable of. Just see the production values of FFXIII. It's clearly a production meant for the PS3 that was inferior on the 360, not because of a poor porting job, but because of the obvious space requirements and other technical factors that includes disk space.

So yeah... maybe people do have a point. What if everyone worked on the best system? How can you not conclude that the weaker of the two links is not limiting the greater?

I am not about to get involved in a console war based on the games themselves. I liked Halo to bits back in the day! I think multiplats are major fun! (See Assassin's Creed) I am merely debating the capabilities of each system. And I don't think I'm misguided or wrong.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:02:19 PM
Reply

You know, if you guys read the previous question from the cited article the spin on this story may wash out differently.

I'll reference that prior question:

"Many developers speak about Xbox 360 GPU and RAM combination as a more powerful group as PS3 equivalent. Do you have the same impression?

A couple of years ago, I would have given you a different answer to that question, but nowadays most developers have figured out both consoles and can get similar results on either one. Have you noticed that we have more and more games that look identical no matter what the platform is?
For me, currently the strength of the console is not judged by its theoretical processing power or such, but by the answers to a few much simpler questions. Which service do you prefer: Xbox Live or PSN? Which controller do you prefer? Are the games you like available on the console you've chosen? Is your console giving you something you feel is very important to you, but the other console doesn't have? These kinds of things."

So let's analyze this. He never says the PS3 is more powerful, or holding anything back. No, he's saying that in the early days he may have said something different, but now he's saying they're virtually identical... Then he goes on to talk about PSN and LIVE etc etc.

Then the topic shifts...
"Five years since Xbox 360 appeared on the market... do you feel that the hardware is stopping you from doing what you'd like?

Yes, but any developer in the world will ALWAYS say that, no matter what. We could have 128 GB of RAM and it still won't be enough ..."

Do you guys know how crazy 128GB of RAM is? That's 256x more than either the PS3 or the 360. What he's saying is that even with an unbelievable quantity of added RAM etc. that a developer will always cry more more more!
It really isn't a 360 holding back PS3 conclusion that he's making here.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:08:26 AM

I agree that he never says 360 holds anything back. In fact I'd go so far as to say he is going extremely out of his way to NOT say that. Why won't a simple "no" suffice? Well, I think that's obvious.

And since when were "nearly identical experiences" what gamers were looking for as opposed to games playing to the strengths of their own system?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:37:58 AM

I sort of follow you, World. But years ago the general multi-plat looked better on 360, but today they're more or less identical. I'm sensing his meaning was that he would've considered the PS3 as inferior to the 360 years ago, but now that most devs have come to grips with the hardware that quality gap is virtually gone (except to the most critical eye). So basically I don't think he was trying to be evasive.

But, personally, I don't agree with his identical comment. GT5, GoW3, U2 and KZ2/KZ3 are all better than the best of 360's lineup. And to use a real apples to apples comparison, GT5 has higher detailed cars, higher range HDR, more lighting layers and 50% more drawn pixels than Forza 3. Granted Forza 3 has zero screen tearing, cleaner shadows, and usually better tree foliage but that's pretty much small potatoes relative to the the much larger pros GT5 is pulling off. When the PS3 is harnessed as Sony intended there's about a full point (10pt scale) of graphics increase on the PS3 side.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ignitus
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:10:11 PM

That's true temjim. I also read the interview and the developer never says what this articles implies, but remember this is a Playstation fan site and it has a natural bias so don't expect objectivity.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:01:39 AM
Reply

of both!
seeing how a portable system is just as powerful as the ps3 just goes to show how out of date it is!
sony really shot themselves in the foot limiting the RAM, they should of put at least 512 dedicated and 512 shared instead of the 512 but split.
cant understand why sony cheeped out on the RAM after going all out on everything else.
i mean look at laptops at the time, the toshiba laptop i bought 14 months before the ps3 released had standard 4GBs of RAM and that only cost me 800 bucks, 200 bucks less than the ps3!
wish we could have a new set of consoles release, not that anyone can afford it, but so we can see PC games truly stride because ATM there being held back by ancient hardware!

Agree with this comment 3 up, 12 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:09:22 AM

Piss off troll.

Agree with this comment 10 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

Shadow_Ninja
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:40:05 AM

what's wrong with __________ speaking his mind? do you not do the same?

i do agree with "space" about the PS3's RAM though. world's can be bigger, less frequent loading times. but you also have to remember the PS2 only had 32 mb of RAM.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 9 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:51:04 AM

Exactly, Shadow_Ninja. Blankguy made a legitimate and very accurate point.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:03:57 AM

No, he doesn't.

RAM is hardly the whole story when it comes to a piece of hardware as complex as the PS3.

Agree with this comment 10 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:05:29 AM

Having an opinion is one thing. But copping an attitude is another.

Or in other words one is certainly entitled to have an opinion and speak one's mind. However that is still no excuse for failing to present said opinion and speak one's mind in a polite and respectable manner.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:10:19 AM

Nevermind blank line, he's one of those guys the CIA gave LSD to for years in secret. If you think he has a point, read more of his posts and you'll see how insane it gets.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 2/3/2011 1:13:23 AM

Agree with this comment 8 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:20:56 AM

@Ben
Yes, he does. The limited RAM has been an admitted limitation. Saying he cannot list one issue is saying no one can post about just the limitations of the 360 using DVD, which people are. Even still, he has no right to be called names or told to leave, because of his honest opinion, right or wrong.

@LG
Well, it was sure great of you to politely and repectfully tell him to 'Piss off, troll.' when he was attacking no one at all. Good on you, bud.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:32:58 AM

An attack doesn't have to be directed at a specific individual to be an attack.

He was attacking pretty much everyone. This is a website that serves as a sanctuary for Sony supporters. Yet he goes and pulls crap like that anyway. It's like pissing in someone's jacuzzi.

Or in other words he was generally creating a nuisance.

And when someone attacks, even if it's not directed specifically at one individual, then retaliatory action is justified.

If he didn't want to fight, then he shouldn't have thrown a punch.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 2/3/2011 1:39:18 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:41:38 AM

Devs usually do complain about wanting more RAM from any system. But that's not to say Sony skimped out on the PS3's ram. The PS3 sold way below cost for a long time. So really, there was NOTHING Sony skimped on for the consumer. Early adopters essentially got $800 of hardware for $600.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:49:37 AM

I come here because it's great info regarding the PS3, though I own all 5 of the current systems, not because of some undying devotion to a company so strong that any small comment against them could be viewed as an 'attack'. You're in the latter category, so all I can say is, carry on, good Sony soldier.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 2:01:33 AM

I said that this website serves as a sanctuary for Sony supporters. I never said or even implied that all of the people on this website actually are Sony supporters. It's just that a number of the people on this website are indeed Sony supporters. But of course he apparently doesn't give a crap.

Even so, the fact that he made a comment against Sony is not the problem. The problem is the fact that he was rude, obnoxious, and inconsiderate about it. Specifically inconsiderate of the feelings of people on this website. And I for one am not inclined to let him get away with it.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 2/3/2011 2:03:42 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 6:20:43 AM

The fact that some of you seem to be missing, is that the ps3 is not built the same as the 360. It is not designed to use ram in the same way. It was designed to not use as much ram.

Having more ram would have simply led devs to most likely misunderstand the ps3 architecture even more and led to them taking longer to learn how it actually works.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 7:17:49 AM

they totally skimped on the RAM, whats the point in putting in one of the worlds most powerful CPUs, putting in at the time a very impressive GPU, bluray, heaps of new tech, hell even the special RAM which is allot faster than normal RAM.
its not speed thats important though, its space.
as crytek said when they first announced crysis 2, the original wont be coming to consoles simply because of RAM restrictions, everything else could handle it only the RAM is preventing it.
putting such little RAM in a system like that, is like building a car that can do 250MPH than putting tires on it which can only handle 150!

sony should not of wasted millions designing and testing a new type of RAM, they should of just gone with standard laptop memory and kit it out to 1GB.
if toshiba, HP, hell even sony in there VIO notebooks can afford to sell a laptop with 4GB of RAM @ around 800 bucks than surely they can handle 1GB for the ps3!
ps3 games would be so much bigger and better if we had 1GB of RAM!
speak to any developer, you ask anyone in the industry whats one thing you want changed they will say the RAM.
hell, look at PC games every game i run i have 12GBs of DDR3 crossfire RAM @ 1333Mhz and every game uses around 60% of it!
so how the blazing hell these people get console games running on 512MBs is astonishing!!!!!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 12 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 8:30:17 AM

You never seem to learn, Mr. No-name.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 8:30:33 AM

I mean really..we're talking about RAM as if the PS3 uses it primarily. Anybody who develops games is going to want more RAM period.

In regards to the PS3 the RAM is not even a factor. The PS3 has so much under the hood that "memory" isn't a issue at all. Also I must point out that the 360 has 512MB GDDR3 RAM clocked @ 700 MHz..and it STILL can't do what the PS3 can do.

Fact is both systems best games are exclusives. We all know that. But when you develop a game for both and you have to limit and/or change what you want to do with your game because the limitations of another system then that is indeed a hold back.

That's not saying anything bad about the 360 because I like mine..but prefer my ps3..It's just the fact that you know a developer wanted/could've done more but they couldn't which is a loss for us gamers period..

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:50:07 AM

PorkChop: Using only one facet of an entire system's architecture to label it woefully "out of date" is simply an incorrect approach.

So no, he isn't right. And when an entire post is written about the PS3's limitations in an article about the 360's limitations, that's bound to incite a reaction I can't stop.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:28:42 PM

Not this discussion again...

Each platform has it's advantages and disadvantages. GPU vs GPU, CPU vs CPU, memory architecture vs memory architecture.

360's GPU is superior in some ways, RSX isn't just a GPU. PS3's cell CPU comfortably out performs 360's CPU. PS3's system RAM is faster, RSX can access both system and video memory. 360's unified memory architecture lets the developer set the amount of memory used by the graphics, the dev can over commit to graphics.

The 360's advantages relate to certain GPU functionality such as High Dynamic Range lighting and full screen anti-aliasing, that the RSX can't match. The PS3s advantage is the CellBE which can be used both to create game world physics unmatched on the 360, and to augment the performance of the GPU with additional effects as the developer desires. The PS3 is the more flexible architecture, and ultimately can do more, although it is more difficult to master.

Simply saying that it needed more memory or that Sony skimped on the memory is nothing more than fanboy posturing. The cost of additional XDR memory at the time of launch would have added significantly to the cost of the PS3. Although it's common now for systems to have 2 or even 4GB of main memory, it was not common at the time. Neither the 360 or the PS3 are general purpose computers, so they do not feature any more memory than is needed. Both consoles are lean systems designed with a very specific purpose in mind. Hand waving about the amount of RAM inside them now is pointless in the extreme.

Incidentally Mr Anonymous Cowherd, the XDR memory in the PS3 is far higher performance than laptop memory, or the memory in the 360. The XDR memory was chosen to ensure maximum bandwidth and low latency to keep the CellBE fed. It's an integrated system and XDR was chosen for a reason, not vanity.

Last edited by Highlander on 2/3/2011 12:30:44 PM

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

pillz81
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 9:32:15 PM

Oh PorkChopGamer and Shadow_Ninja, it should be obvious to you. _____________ sprinkled bits of truth to his bullsh!t and that threw you off. What just happened is he knew he was going to be pissing someone off and receive a comment cursing him out/dismissing his original comment, aka flame-baiting. It seems his intentions were lost on you.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Shadow_Ninja
Friday, February 04, 2011 @ 7:07:32 PM

wow, i never thought it would get his bad.

i don't get to post that often, i normally just read the article and move on to the next one, and there's so many members now i only really pay attention to the avid posters, like ben obviously, world, highlander and that guy with the cheeseburger picture. but when i do post, i try to stick to the facts and just throw in my opinion as well. i really didn't mean for all of this commotion to happen if any of you feel i had something to do with it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:39:20 AM
Reply

ps3 exclusives put any other games whether multiplatform or 360 exclusive to shame.

Tell me Uncharted 3, Infamous 2, Killzone 3, and All 4 One won't look better than 360's big games. Are there any big 350 games this year?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

GuyverLT
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 1:40:44 PM

Not disagreeing about those games being better than most of the 360 exclusives, but well they do have Gears of war3 & that car racing simulator, I forget the name of it though.

Last edited by GuyverLT on 2/3/2011 1:41:44 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 5:31:19 PM

Oh Gears and Forza?

But be honest, will those 2 games actually stand up to ps3's gems?

Forza is a joke.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Bloodysilence19
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 2:05:43 AM
Reply

reading all the comments by LG and PCG, it seems like we need Jerry springer on here lol. to me both ps3 and 360 have its limitations both have weakness and greats. to me 360 is mainly multiplatform game console, while ps3 is exclusive game console. meaning there's more multiplatform games that play and look better on 360 its a fact. while ps3 tends have better looking exclusive than 360 that's a fact.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

spiderboi
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 3:23:08 AM

Amen brother!

Sure, its next gen and we're all about purty graphics. But honestly, I care more about the fun factor of games. Even if Heavy Rain had PS2 graphics but delivered the same fun, I would have no problems with it. Fun = story is good, game isn't broken, gameplay is enjoyable yet challenging.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 6:48:15 AM

I think it should be painfully obvious to people that if a multiplat is designed with one of the two systems as the forefront, it will be better on that system. Since it's a fact that ps3 exclusives are always better, perhaps we should be upset Dev's don't take the time to properly port a game over to PS3.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:23:05 AM

Multiplatform games that started life on the Ps3, or used the PS3 as the lead platform look as good or better on the PS3. Burnout Paradise from three years ago was lead developed on the PS3, but simultaneously built on both the 360 and PS3. the result was that the game looked as good or better on the PS3. FFXIII was built for the PS3 and ported to the 360. The 360 version was clearly visually inferior in every respect. If a game is not simultaneously developed for both platforms, but is instead built for one and ported to the other, there are compromises inherent in porting a game that hurt the ported version.

Until developers learn that the best product for both consoles is obtained by developing for both platforms at the same time and not optimizing for only one platform and then porting to another, multi-platforms will continue to vary.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FM23
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 2:49:02 AM
Reply

This is so true...compare Uncharted 2 or GOWIII or Killzone 3 to Mass Effect 2 or Halo Reach...PS3 exclusives are the best of the best when it comes to quality and graphics...thats for sure. I mean, think about how much 'more awesome' GTAIV and RDR could be if it was a PS3 exclusives...DAMN. Those games already go beyond multiplatform requirements. If anything, Rockstar games proves most developers who do multiplats are lazy...Bethsheda or however you spell it comes to mind. Fallout NV was a glitchy mess even though I loved it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

jdt1981
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 5:42:33 AM
Reply

All I know is when I compare exclusive PS3 games such as Uncharted 1 & 2, GOW3, Heavy Rain, MGS4, Killzone 2, etc. to ANY game on the 360 whether exclusive or not the PS3 exclusives are very noticeably superior. When it comes to hardware the CELL processor, Blu-Ray and standard HDD makes the PS3 superior to the 360.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RadioHeader
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 5:56:37 AM
Reply

Ah memories... Mostly terrible ones as I used to own a 360 (several including refurbs).

M$ = Giant Douche
360 = Turd Sandwich
The End.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The Doom
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 7:17:09 AM
Reply

This page carries the smell of fanboys. Why make a '360' article on such a 'mature' playstation site? ;)

Last edited by The Doom on 2/3/2011 7:18:27 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 15 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 7:18:17 AM

only this page?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 17 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 7:58:31 AM

Neither of you have to stay here.

This place since I have been here and for the past 10 years has been a Playstation site.

Quit acting like you just found that out.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 9:02:40 AM

How many other PS sites do you know will openly admit when a 360 version of a multiplat game is the better version?

In fact, how many 360 sites do you know would do the same vice versa?

Better still, how many editors of XBOX sites do you know will praise a high quality PS3 exclusive?

And of course finally, shock of all shocks, are you surprised that a playstation site would be full of people who prefer the playstation? Why would you berate a site for gloating about the fact that the PS3 is a proven best? So we won the quality war... let us cheer.

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:17:51 AM

They won't answer any of those questions, Underdog.

They'll run away with their tail between their legs after making a stupid accusation. They always do.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:19:14 AM

The article is carried because the site covers gaming as an industry, with specific focus on PlayStation. However, it's an industry issue that developers are beginning to run into the boundaries of what the 360 can do, whether that be disc capacity, download size or other constraints that are not currently felt on the PS3.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

The Doom
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:57:18 AM

@maxpontiac
I'm not stupid; I know I don't have to stay here and I know its for playstation. So with that in mind, why is there an article about the 360's limitations on said site? Seems out of place to you? Most of the folks here dislike it anyway, so 360 bashing is evident. Plus I could've sworn that I heard someone from here say that this isn't simply a place for PS3 fans; its just a place were the users simply prefer Sony's console. A "simple preference" huh?


It seemed to me that the article was made JUST to jab at the 360. That made my opinion of the site change a bit. I'd expect to find such a title somewhere other than psxe.

@TheHighlander
Yes, you say it's here because it's related to the industry, but so were the pirates who attacked it and there weren't as much articles about those.

@Ben Dutka PSXE
...what's that supposed to mean?

Last edited by The Doom on 2/3/2011 10:58:27 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 11:04:00 AM

The Doom: Check around. A whole LOT of sites posted the same article, and with FAR more leading headlines than ours. In fact, in the article, it is specifically mentioned that the developer in question isn't "bashing" anything.

And if you'd like to answer Underdog's questions, I'd be all ears. But you won't. You'll just ignore all the dozens upon dozens of features and articles that entirely support and even promote the 360 and its games.

Don't post again if you're going to make an inaccurate accusation. Get me?

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:13:02 PM

Doom, nice red herring there. discussion of hacking and/or game piracy is a long way away from this discussion, but you go ahead and throw it into the discussion in the hope that you can distract the discussion away from the point you lost when you decided to post.

And just to ensure that the red herring is hooked, landed, filleted and well cooked.... Believe it or not some news sites don't cover piracy because they believe it fosters such activity. Discussing the comments of a developer about the relative merits or abilities of one of the major consoles is a world away from writing about piracy or hacking (both of which are illegal activities under the laws of most developed nations).


Last edited by Highlander on 2/3/2011 12:15:53 PM

Agree with this comment 9 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 3:50:24 PM

@The Doom,

This is actually a rather mature website for gamers. As my console of choice is the 360, I dabble in the 360's official forums and can attest that this place is loads more mature than it is there. I've been to other sites as well and have found the same thing to be true.

Have you read though the article archives at all? If so, you'll see that the 360 actually does get praise here. If a multiplat is better on the 360, it's stated. If there's a good gaming experience to be had on the 360 (and only on the 360) such as Halo: Reach, we're told about it. I've yet to see a 360 site that would devote positive articles to the PS3.

There's nothing wrong with the article that was posted. While the subject is the 360, the content does deal with the PS3 as it deals with the possibility that the 360's hardware limitations are holding back publishers from creating a better PS3 experience.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 4:56:50 PM

imo, TheDoom just seems to be upset that someone supposedly would "trash" his favorite system. The problem is, this isn't really a trashing. It's a commentary based on reading between the lines of what a particular developer said. WorldEndsWithMe seems to have gotten a hold of this pretty well.

But, TheDoom, this really isn't much of a 360 thrashing, and it isn't near what it COULD be. This one solitary sorta-thrashing should not be the forefront of your focus amongst the countless props to games like Alan Wake or Gears by this sites editor. In fact, I bet if you go through a few past editorials, you'll find a couple mentions from Ben in his current gaming update that he's trying out some 360 game... and enjoying it.

There's a difference between arguing production values and a quality/fun game. This isn't about which system offers more fun-potential. It's which systems offers the most potential for high production values.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

pillz81
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 9:41:09 PM

Doom? Doom?! Where is Doom? *Chirp Chirp*
I THOUGHT I smelled A dumb tw@t around here.

Last edited by pillz81 on 2/3/2011 9:42:33 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

The Doom
Friday, February 04, 2011 @ 7:12:06 AM

@Underdog15
If the 360 was my system of choice, why the hell would I waste my time here? I already gave you the reason why I gave my response.

@pillz81
What are you some 'internet tough guy'? You post itself makes you "A dumb tw@t" lol

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Friday, February 04, 2011 @ 5:27:28 PM

Whatever dude... I read your points, and put them all down, and you've provided NO rebuttal nor admitted being wrong about incorrectly labeling this site...

So...

But I do agree that Pillz is a lil' out of line. ;)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TheAgingHipster
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 8:35:40 AM
Reply

Ain't called Microslop for nothin'.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 3:42:27 PM

It's not called Microslop.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 4:59:04 PM
Reply

There are a small handful of games I REALLY want to play that are only on the 360. I won't lie. But the quality of the PS3 and the amount of huge exclusives is a downright win for me!! There's no possible way I can play every game I want to play on ONE system, let alone two.

But honestly, if the 360 can prove to me that it's better than the PS3, I will buy it again!! (Sold my first 360 to help fund an engagement ring. GREAT investment by the way!)
:)

Last edited by Underdog15 on 2/3/2011 4:59:11 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Danny007
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 6:33:36 PM
Reply

It doesn't matter what system is better to play Bulletstorm on. I thought the demo was terrible. I will not be getting this game at all.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Did Advanced Warfare save Call of Duty?
Yes, CoD is back on track!
Possibly; it was a positive step.
The jury's still out...
No, CoD is still doomed.

Previous Poll Results