Comments on: Bioshock PS3 to go to Digital Extremes

By: Robo_1

Robo_1 — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:47:18 +0000

The thing is, when the developer takes into account the PS3 version from the start, (CoD4, Burnout) things tend to turn out well for PS3. The simple fact is that PS3 and 360 have such different architectures, that the “ported” platform is always going to suffer.

By: OrphanageExplosion

OrphanageExplosion — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:37:49 +0000

In fairness, the PS3 port of Dark Sector wasn’t bad at all. Reduced resolution but you couldn’t tell the difference, due to the insane levels of post-processing on the visuals. I can think of worse developers to get on the case.

By: OrphanageExplosion

OrphanageExplosion — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:31:45 +0000

In fairness, the PS3 port of Dark Sector wasn’t bad at all. Reduced resolution but you couldn’t tell the difference. I can think of worse developers to get on the case.

By: morriss

morriss — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:25:08 +0000

Why even bother doing it?

By: DrDamn

DrDamn — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:23:41 +0000

@Mortiferus
Yeah I’ve seen some of the PS3 shots - which kind of makes this sort of announcement a bit strange. I.e. they’ve already got the game up and running before handing it off to someone else? That’s either good or very bad.

Just as a little aside the 360 version wasn’t exactly in AA heaven itself, but the PS3 shots were particularly bad I’ll give you that.

By: Blerk

Blerk — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:18:09 +0000

I do wonder whether Cell will turn out to be Sony’s great white elephant at the end of all this. For all its talk of greatness, very few people appear to be able to get to grips with it and those that *can* are still getting better, easier results with the 360.

Over-complication again, you see. Two platforms do things in a ‘kind of’ similar way, one is vastly different. Guess which one gets the short end of the stick.

By: SplatteredHouse

SplatteredHouse — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:17:56 +0000

Well, I can agree with you morti, as far as trepidation over the next range of consoles go. Lots of detracting factors have arisen, even to change the very perception of how a console should be viewed. There have obviously been benefits, and those shouldn’t be overlooked; but for the first time in all the years I’ve been gaming, I am not really looking forward to new consoles (come 2010, or whenever), which I think, actually, is a pity.

By: mortiferus

mortiferus — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:11:13 +0000

Psychotext quite honestly we may never know. I fear new consoles in 2010… regardless of what MS and Sony say.

By: Psychotext

Psychotext — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:23:41 +0000

mortiferus: I’m fully aware of everything you just said… I’m also aware of what the CELL was originally supposed to be like.

But that’s not to say that if pushed properly the machine isn’t capable of some very special things. Like I said earlier though, very few people will be able to get the most out of it.

By: mortiferus

mortiferus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:59:07 +0000

Psychotext SPUs are:

A) Not real cores like in traditional multi-core systems. Hence do not run at the same speed as the host CPU. It’s funny how Sony has used the term “Core” to inappropriately fool gamers.

B) Not based on the same architecture the cell is. They are instead DSP like in nature, therefore are addressed separately as orchestrated/managed by the CEll or are used independently.

C) Incapable of effectively communicating between themselves dynamically. Basically one finishes, the other starts think of them as a chain.

How Kutagari thought this would work ina cohesive manner on a game machine is baffling. Can you imagine if Sony had gone the non-RSX tacked on route as they originally planned? ouch…

Overall the PS3 architecture computes at higher *Raw* numbers than 360, but is not meant or optimized for games. Look at the insane development cycles for Killzone and MSG4 alone. It will not get any easier as shader calc

Ill leave you with this thought, If they need 4 studios to PORT a year old game, downgrading it visually in order to get it to run acceptably, which is the weaker system of the two?

By: SticKboy

SticKboy — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:22:01 +0000

I reckon we need to wait and see for God of War 3 - that’s what I’ll base by PPS3 purchasing decision on.

By: Psychotext

Psychotext — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:21:07 +0000

We’d be seeing a different picture if it released first and sold like the PS2… but it didn’t, so we’re obviously not.

By: ecu

ecu — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:18:46 +0000

I don’t really see that as a benefit though, if 95% of developers can’t work with it for shit. If they can get better results with (supposedly) inferior hardware, then it all seems rather pointless.

By: Psychotext

Psychotext — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:16:29 +0000

There’s a hell of a lot of processing power in the CELL… you just need to work around the fact that it’s not that good if you don’t utilise the SPUs properly.

By: ecu

ecu — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:14:08 +0000

..such as?

By: Psychotext

Psychotext — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:01:21 +0000

ecu: There’s lot of benefits available… but obviously because it’s so hard to work with you’re only really going to see them on first party high budget stuff.

By: wz

wz — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:52:19 +0000

But don’t they always have those awesome 3-letter-name chips on board, of which one letter must be an X?

Surely, that is a big advantage. Someone will mention that.

By: ecu

ecu — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:48:20 +0000

PS4 really needs to take the Microsoft/360 route of being a PC in a box. The PS3’s complicated architecture is causing them no end of problems. I can’t see any possible benefits from it.

By: Robo_1

Robo_1 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:41:41 +0000

Shoe horning PC/360 games into the PS3 rarely yields fantastic results.

By: mortiferus

mortiferus — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:40:53 +0000

Ecu, It is already very apparently inferior. Lack of true AA, lower rez textures… did I mention jaggies?

By: ecu

ecu — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:38:16 +0000

I bet it still runs worse and looks worse than the 360 version.