Not all PS3s equal in regards to SCIV?

DeathCom

DeathCom

[09] Warrior
Considering this is my first post here I guess I gotta make a semi introduction so, hey all, whats up, like the new board ^_^ But anyway, Ive been around since the original community started back on the old, OLD, sc.com (the one with the threaded single forum board, old school intarweb stuff). I also run a goofy lil media site hosting some SC stuffs as well as other big name 3D fighters. But on to the topic..

Anyway, like many of you fellow PS3 players, I am disappointed with the slowdown issues plaguing the PS3 release. I recently got to see the 360 version for a brief while and have to confirm that there is significantly less slowdown. Its not flawless, but its comparable to what we saw in the SCII days.

However, while examining the 360 version, something unexpected caught my attention. In character creation, adjusting the physique and muscularity are updated roughly with a half second of lag. On my original release 60GB PS3 the visual representation is updated like three or so seconds after you stop making adjustments. It rarely, if ever, will update while your moving the slider. I pointed it out and a friend that was over replied "So what, that's how it is on my PS3." His PS3 is an 80GB model that shipped with MGS4. So now I'm in search of a reason why. While Im not sure, it is possible this is related to the amount of in game slowdown. I figured it was perhaps just a HDD difference, but from what I know the 60 & 80GB drives are both 5400RPM with 8MB buffers. I then thought it was somehow file fragmentation, I swapped out the drive in my PS3 and did a fresh install of SCIV, no change.

I figure looking at the HDD is likely the wrong place anyway. The PS3 version, once installed, loads a bit faster than the 360 version anyway. Its impossible that a DVD rom could out pace even a 5400 rpm drive in seek or sustained load times. The data choke has to be something more technical. The question is, what?

In the end it might just be that some PS3 models handle the game better than others. Though the only repeatable, verifiable difference is the lag in character creation, I have to wonder. Wince its not likely data read speed holding things up but rather the processing of that data, it stands to reason that slowdown in game is also somehow affected. I will need to play on my friends 80GB PS3 to see if there is any less slowdown, but I gather it may be impossible to really tell. If however Im wrong on that, and there are obvious advantages on another PS3....

-DeathCom
 
Multiplatform games will always be better on the 360 because there is a lot less optimization required for the console. Its an easier system to develop for, and lazy companies like Namco wont put in the extra time and go that extra mile. If you look at other games developed strictly for the console; you can see what that extra mile means. Games like Uncharted and Metal Gear Solid 4 are two of the most beautiful games ever made; and its due to the extra things you can do on the PS3 that you can't do on the 360... but it takes more work. If you look at Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, its stunning: high dynamic range, specular lighting, no visible load times during the entirety of the game (beyond the first load)... all things that just cant be done on the 360, and all of it without any lag, slowdown or frame stutter.
 
I used to visit the old threaded sc.com site back in the day. I was a noob, and the guys there help me solve the mystery of Maxi's A+B (8way run, heh)

I also used to visit your old page Deathcom. I got a kick of checking out all of your versus vids. Guess shelling out the bandwidth for vids is kinda pointless now with the emergence of youtube and its many clones. Anyway, I don't have anything to contribute to the actual topic so I'll just shutup...now
....
 
Jaxel, while its clear that the 360 version is all around better, and for reasons you stated, Im curious if all PS3 versions are equally bad. Sony took that "specifications subject to change without notice" clause pretty far with the various versions of PS3s out there.

Kufi, glad you use to visit my site. It wasn't really bandwidth that had me stop posting match videos, it was progressive scan games that did. Back with the Dreamcast when S-video was still considered "good" or "acceptable" I could easily split that signal and have my PC just record while we had a game night. SCII offered progressive scan component video and recording that proved to be... difficult at the time to deal with. Today, PS3 with its HDCP enabled HDMI is just about impossible to record (not to mention the problems if you could record it in regards to space needed...), and over the years my pool of local gamers has dwindled down significantly. And yes, with youtube having countless match videos, I figure Id focus with just ripping the game's prettier bits into the best quality video I could.

-DeathCom
 
the reason for xbox having faster loading @character creation when you change an item is the following:
1.blue ray discs have more avaible space
2.blue ray discs have faster access time due to better compression
3.the ps3 version has better textures cause of more space on the disc

bigger texture = longer loadings, its just that easy.

the xbox dvd reader is damn loud most of the time cause the xbox reads everything ahead cause of slower access time on regular dvds + worse textures = faster loading in character editor.

beside that I dont see what is rly different and I dont have any slowdowns while playing.

btw the ps3 architecture is truely better but harder to develop on.
 
I'd like to see where these "better textures" are. If you're looking for a reasonable argument in favour of the PS3, Jaxel's is the closest you're going to get.
 
The PS3 and 360 are about equal power. Yes the PS3 has Blu-ray and the cell, but the 360 has a better graphics processor and memory architecture.

Blu-ray can hold much bigger textures than a DVD obviously, but the problem is the PS3's memory. Big textures can't do anything if they can't be buffered. It's called a bottleneck. Also the PS3’s graphics processor just isn't as powerful as the 360's. The only place that you could see a big difference is the Cell. It wouldn't be a visual advantage but more along the lines of A.I. and physics. Things that use the Cell's many spu's.

As for the reason some games look better than others is just programming differences. Metal Gear looks great because Kojima is a genius. On a tech side there is nothing there that couldn’t be done on a 360 (with enough DVD’s).

Anyway if you don't believe me, check out this interview with John Carmack. He's the president of ID software, created the first person genre, programmed the Doom engine, and now is working on Rage for the PS3 and 360. He's also one of the most straight up guys in the industry and explains this stuff pretty plainly.

Sorry that was so long, but I just hate it when people spread misinformation.

GameVideos - John Carmack 'QuakeCon 2008 Interview' Video
 
this is typical, someone sees advertisement on something and thinks it is much better, or is just a fanboy cause he ownes it himself. it doesnt matter what this guy say or what you feel and it is waste of time to listen to him, it is just another propaganda video. instead you could research by yourself.
you could
e.g.
-search the numbers for both units
-compare vids
-dont care about fanboys and advertisement

if you would have done those basic things, you would realise that:
ps3 cpu ist faster and the NVIDIA RSX has more horsepower then the ATI Xenos, new ps3 games look generally bit better cause developers start to adapt.

then the bluray issue goes deeper than that. E.g the audio on MGS4 is PCM uncompressed audio, basically TrueDolby and is almost 5-6 GB of data, can you ever see that amount of audio on a 360 dvd game? The theme here is 'more is better', and more games will be made that are 30-40+ GB in size, so the 360 is massively bottlenecked in this regard, so a game like MGS4 will NEVER appear on 360. Soon everything will peak on the 360, due to the small size of DVDs (and more dvds per game = higher price)

Another thing is, everyone knows about those unfair/faked video comparisons, as someone on youtube found out. the reason why sometimes the colors look drained is because companies (probably intentionally) forgot one little setting which puts everything how it should on the playstation. If you click on settings then display and look for rgp full they will leave it on limited they should put it to full, i tried it my self there is a huge difference. If you got a hi-def tv put it to limited play a game then put it on full and see the difference.

then the reason we have such a big amount of xbox fanboys is the amount of money microsoft pumps into advertising, e.g. this guy on your video =D

my advice to you is, research for yourself and filter the right information.

beside that the ps3 looks better and I like the controller much more but this is personal taste.

SickFace said:
Sorry that was so long, but I just hate it when people spread misinformation.
Click to expand...
you have shot yourself in your leg it looks like =D

*edit*
about the "xbox has more memory" argument
xbox has a memory POOL of 512 @700mhz clock and additional the gpu has 10MB eDRAM for some designated operations
whereas the ps3 256 MB of XDR main memory @3.20gHz clock and 256 MB of GDDR3 video memory clocked @700 mhz.
Sure on the xbox you can designate the memory how you like but there is a space vs. speed trade-off here. The PS3 doesn't require as much memory for certain tasks. For example, progressive meshes are a viable technique on the PS 3's SPUs, whereas it is not very viable on the 360's cores.

just had to clarify things up
have a nice day
 
Seriously if you think John Carmack is owned by Microsoft you are the most insanely stupid person that I ever seen on the internet. I know none of this will get through to you because you are a blind Sony lemming, but the subject of the interview was that Carmack was upset that Microsoft charges a fee when a developer wants to use a third disc for there game. Wow, what a fanboy huh. I know you don't know who he is, but you pretty much made a complete ass out of yourself. In the end you can believe what ever you want, but you will go through life being ignorant.
 
epic fail, reading comprehension ftw!

I have never said he is owned by microsoft BUT if you start talking about busines... if you had followed the market and read some articles lately you would know ID software and microsoft are working together closely =D

and you have no arguments against the facts I pointed out, all you do is insulting me of being the most insanely stupid and ignorant person, showing me you have absolutely no idea.
 
CptCosmic said:
it doesnt matter what this guy say or what you feel and it is waste of time to listen to him, it is just another propaganda video. instead you could research by yourself.
Click to expand...

Soo Hmm.. Yeah I guess listening to John C is a complete waste of time, ya know the guy only builds rockets in his spare time. I'm pretty sure a guy who designs games for both the ps3 and 360 knows what he is talking about. All you do is run numbers little boy and thats all you have. I own both consoles and so far from what I have seen the ps3 doesn't put out isn't anything significant over the 360 to make it "better" by far comparision, and maybe you should go back watch most of the comparison videos cause.. Umm you can't tell an effing difference. So maybe you should instead of arguing which console is better why don't you just go enjoy what you have and just play some games :)
 
PEZIX said:
Soo Hmm.. Yeah I guess listening to John C is a complete waste of time, ya know the guy only builds rockets in his spare time. I'm pretty sure a guy who designs games for both the ps3 and 360 knows what he is talking about. All you do is run numbers little boy and thats all you have. I own both consoles and so far from what I have seen the ps3 doesn't put out isn't anything significant over the 360 to make it "better" by far comparision, and maybe you should go back watch most of the comparison videos cause.. Umm you can't tell an effing difference. So maybe you should instead of arguing which console is better why don't you just go enjoy what you have and just play some games :)
Click to expand...
i have not said it is complete waste of time. it is just business and it is what he wants you to hear and because ID and microsoft are working together, it is also probably what microsoft wants you to hear too (and because he is famous it has a big impact on what people believe or not)

and your argumentation is flawed. so if he tells you, go out and punch people as hard as you can because xbox is awesome, even if he knows what he talks about and maybe xbox360 is awesome (indeed it is) would you listen to him? it is an extreme example but shows my point.

and I dont have just numbers, just look @ ps3 only titles, you will never see such beatiful games on xbox. e.g. Drakes Fortune or MGS4, I dont even own MGS4, I dont like the series and I never player any MGS game ever, just saw it =D

kungfucolin said:
I see only one fanboy in this thread, and that is you, Cosmic.

~ Colin
Click to expand...
even If I am a fanboy, I can backup my fanboying with facts which obviously none of you can =D

have a nice day.
 
I truly don't think anything will get through to you Cosmic. I'm not a fan-boy. I never said the PS3 sucks. It's simply not any better graphically than the 360.

Carmack is not just a "famous" person. He is one of the only people in the industry that speaks plainly about things. Even if he was working with Microsoft (Please provide a link of this because I have never heard about it and I can't find it anywhere), it wouldn't matter. If you actually watch the video you can see he is talking about a problem he has with Microsoft charging fees for extra discs and because Sony has blu-ray he thinks the fees should be removed. He is also developing the game Rage for both systems.

You are correct that blu-ray is great. It can hold allot of space. Yes, audio on the PS3 can be better. The part where you are wrong is the RSX vs the Xenos. Both are equally powerful, but have very different architecture. In your typical situation the Xenos can push more textures because of the memory allocation. No matter how "potentially powerful" the Cell is, if it can't push past the bottlenecks then it's a wash.

The whole Metal Gear/ Uncharted thing is BS. Those games have a great artistic style that only a few developers are able to accomplish. You cannot tell me those games have better textures than any other AAA game right now. Gears of War can still run with those games on sheer tech and some games do things better. The faces in battlefield bad company beat Metal Gears hands down.

If you can provide any links or proof then I will gladly read or listen to it and eat my words. I'm talking about legit stuff, not a fan-site or something.
 
These days the people who throw out words like "troll" or "fanboy" first tend to be trolls and fanboys. Just something I've noticed.
 
SickFace said:
..stuff...
Click to expand...
lol wtf are you talking about, plz stop guessing and talking about stuff you dont know anything about it just sounds stupid.
1. you say how much better the xenos is because of some random stuff you are just guessing
2. then you are telling us about the bottlenecks of the cell? what are those bottlenecks? bottlenecks, plz provide us some information =D lol memory allocation? cell != gpu. the gpu can use its own memory or the main memory as fast as its own. just compare the possible shader operations per second: 126 billions from the nvidia side vs the 48 billions of ATI and still the cell does need much less memory for some operations like already told ya -.-

then research for yourself, I wont the work for you, but I can tell you that some of id works for microsofts halo team.

talking about random stuff you dont know anything about is not an argument, maybe you try harder next time.
I will do you a favor, show you what an argument is: the advantage the Xenos has, is dealing with anti aliasing cause of its eDRAM but probably you dont even know what this is.

still no valid point against ps3 except the one I brought (doesnt count =D), just insulting and random guessing

next plz
 
SickFace said:
I know none of this will get through to you because you are a blind Sony lemming, but the subject of the interview was that Carmack was upset that Microsoft charges a fee when a developer wants to use a third disc for there game.
Click to expand...

You got it wrong sickface. The classifications go like this, and the reasons-

Lemming- XBOX- They seem to demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about the other systems outside of what microsoft tells them.
Cow- Playstation- They let sony 'milk' them with high prices
Sheep- Nintendo- They 'follow' thier master.
PC- Hermit- They stay inside thier homes. (Mainly because of the online game things)
 
1) Carmack points out that the platforms are equivalent FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. He knows there are games that can tap the PS3 better, he didn't make a mistake and clearly stated that it was his point of view.

2) He clearly states that his position and his company's position is that the XBOX is a better system. That makes him a fanboy, whether you want to label a big name one or not it's done and he said it.

3) Neither system is tapped by any game and neither will mainly because the systems are due for an update already and Microsoft is in a stronger position for this so even if the PS3 rocks the XBOX now Microsoft's model was made to rock with new hardware...so if there was a gap Microsoft could close it easily.

4) Soul Calibur lags on both systems and it's the network code and the network game design that needs a revamp. This is a prevalent theme in gaming, it's not the console, it's the game designers. Basically...as long as you don't tap out the system with a bottleneck (which game designers identify and work around) you get amazing gameplay from either system. Both are f'ing uber compared to a normal Nintendo now go enjoy your video games in peace on whatever system you managed to dish out an insane amount of cash for.
 
What in the jebus happened to this thread?? Also, to the above poster, I believe the original topic was referring to the actual game speed, not network latency. I can understand your comment though, since this thread has had a bit of misdirection.
 
What I don't understand is if what developers are saying is true.. Why did Sony spend tons of money on PS3's graphics only to come up equal with X360's graphics? I mean I'll stick to Sony anyway because of the games regardless (Tekken primarily), but I do feel cheated that what I paid for still hasn't shown all that power.

As far as the topic that are all PS3's are equal in regards to SCIV. I believe so as the only change that I'm aware of from launch to now is the HDD and 60GB launch PS3's had PS2 hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom