David Cage opens up on creating a new game at the end of the PS3's lifecycle, explaining that the console is still very powerful and people will be surprised with it after seeing Beyond: Two Souls.
The complex architecture of the PS3 has made progress slow for developers but there's still a lot of potential in that black box. We should still be seeing improvements in PS3 games, even this far into the gen. They may not be obvious or mindblowing but there's definitely more horsepower hidden away there.
For sure.Some of the most visually impressive games this gen are thanks to PS3
It's good to see developers realizing what the PS3 can do and take advantage of it. Tired of seeing lazy devs *cough* Bethesda.
I agree. Also, Beyond = Confirmed PS3 title.
Why don't any of them run at 1080o or 60FPS? That alone is proof that the GPU is maxed out and can't render fast enough. Reducing something else isn't magically using more hidden power.
hidden power probably isn't the best way to describe it. but i wouldn't doubt that there are still some new tricks devs can pull by focusing less on pizel count and framerate edit: pixel
@KurianOfBorg some games are 1080p 60 fps, but there aren't many reasons why making these games, it's a waste of resources and time for programming PS3 is capable 60 fps full hd games, even ps2 was capable 60 fps games anyway, games aren't made by hardware, games are made by talented people, that's why Last of us, Gran Turismo 5 or Last guardian looks like next-gen material
@blitz0623 Bethesda is also script heavy and requires more memory then say GTA4 (a game that if you walk four feet away from your car it goes away). For visuals you can rely on Sony's Cell processor, but the cell isn't going to remember where all the bodies are in Skyrim.
I agree, 360 fanboys are so dulsional, anyone that doesn't admit PS3 exclusives have the best graphics this gen is clearly blind.
For sure, the PS3 is a supercomputer and becomes more powerful with age.......wait what?.
Both sides are right in some way. No, there isn't a massive amount of power hidden somewhere, this is 2006 hardware and not some futuristic alien technology, or it becomes magically more powerful by its age. BUT, we've also seen in the past that every console at the end of its lifecycle gets games that squeeze out the last bits of power out of every till then part of the system that wasn't known how to use before. If we look at last gen, just see what God of War 2 did on the PS2. Or when looking at the competition, what Fable or Doom 3 did on the XBOX 1 hardware. The XBOX 1 had a Celeron 733Mhz CPU (at that time used in laptops and cheapass PC's that weren't advised for gaming really), a Geforce 3 GPU (that was on the PC market out for years and years already and seen as old tech) and 64MB Ram. To play Fable on a PC back then took a pretty high spec machine to show something on screen that matched Fable on the XBOX. We didn't see those games at launch, or even mid consolecycle. Coming back to this gen and the PS3 specifically, there is more that shows that the PS3 is pushed further, maybe even more so than the 360. Not because it has so much stronger hardware, but because of 2 reasons: 1. PS3's tech was so hard to explore, compared to 360, that now after 6 years of extra hard work the devs know the tricks to achieve the same and all that extra effort might even give the edge in some more 2. Because Sony spend more money on 1st party studios and thus specifically written engines for the PS3 to explore the specific hardware (compared to the 360 that mostly had to run on 3rd party engines, with Epics engine on top), they could squeeze more out of the console. Games like Uncharted show this. And actual proof that the PS3 even can get one step further is already shown in footage of The Last of Us. If anyone likes to deny that TLOU isn't again a WOW moment, another step up on whats out there already for the consoles, then one is in denial. So yes, the PS3 isn't powerful enough to do native 1080p for all games in a high framerate (neither 360, nor I bet even WiiUpgrade), those few that do are always less demanding games in physics, effects, number of enemies on screen etc (same way the original XBOX 1 had 720p for some games though the XBOX 1 component cable pack but always had less detail and stuff going on then other games). BUT at the end of a lifecycle there are always a couple of jewels that make a console shine. Period, the ones disagreeing are either fanboys of a specific system that dislike another system getting a game like TLOU or in this case Beyond or they haven't looked at what games in former gen(s) were pushed out at the end of the lifecycle that are just true diamonds in their generation.
Despite how phenomenally awesome the graphics and effects would be over the competitions', if the PS3 were easier to develop for then gamers would complain that PS3 had hit its limit and is lame. People love "room for improvement". It keeps them on the edge of their seats in anticipation for the next new awesome thing. In other words, it's an elaborate marketing ploy concocted by Sony.
So when the Wii U comes out, if I dont see a title that looks and plays as good as The Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls, what does that mean? I'm asking PlayStation fans and Nintendo fans, but mostly Nintendo fans for your opinion on that.
I understand that the complexity of PS3's inner workings have been a struggle for many devs, but c'mon now, the PS3's been out like 6 years or so, that's plenty of time for anyone to get accustomed to the architecture, the real problem is many devs are just too lazy to put the effort in when they gain large profits regardless.
Case in point - Bethesda.
It takes time to really get the best out of the hardware. It's just too bad some developers seem to need new hardware to jumpstart innovation again. That's why I'm looking forward to this game quite a bit. There is still lots of great ideas they can do now without the need for new systems. It's always nice having that leap forward each generation, but when they don't have to struggle with new hardware they can concentrate more of making a great game while already knowing the systems capabilities.
@ZEROCROSSING Completely agree, there's a lot of studios out there just out for the easy money. However there are some devs that will eek out every possible advantage that the cell PS3 has to offer. Take Uncharted 2 to Uncharted 3, while the improvement was not a massive leap, as 2 was from 1, there were notable improvements in physics, lighting and such. The cruise liner levels in particular highlight this point.
I don't agree it's down to lazy devs rather a combination of publisher cost restraints and less experience with specific PS3 coding. A PC dev can quickly adjust to coding the 360, they can also port code to the PS3 but that means not making use of all the SPE's. But that brings another issue; adding code to make use of the SPE's requires more memory but the PS3 doesn't have extra memory rather it has slightly less usable system memory. I wonder how many ppl using N4G can use 2 to 3 languages natively - not many I'll bet.
The PS3 is an architectural nightmare with many bottlenecks.the strange CPU, the archaic GPU, the slow Blu-Ray drive. It's a mess and only developers with a lot of dedicated time can make a program that runs well on it. It's a PoS and only Sony fanboys deny it.
Don't worry little fella I hear you.I would be pissed too knowing nothing comes close Sony exclusives in terms of graphics.
Puff, puff pass!
And yet with all those supposed faults, the PS3 has the best looking games this generation. And it's time to put the myth that the bd drive is slow to rest. The bd drive reads/writes at a uniform speed whether it's getting data from the outside of the disc or inside. DVD drives don't read at a uniform rate. It's slow on the outside, faster on the inside. When you average out the speeds, the diff b/w bd and dvd is negligible. And again, games like GoW3 and Uncharted stream seamlessly with zero loading so why isn't the SLOW bd drive hindering those games? If even one game can astound with it's visual prowess, it means that the other devs are lazy.
It's actually faster on the outside and slower on the inside. Although it takes exactly the same time for a point on the inside to turn 360%, less data can be written there, whilst on the outside more data can be written there and accessed within that 360% spin.
It's funny how the developers who call it a 'challenge' get good results and the ones who call it 'hard work' are the ones who do the bad ports! Since when was working for a living not 'hard work' for most of us!! It's down to laziness!!
Everyone is mad cause hes saying the pure and honest 100% truth...the ps3 is a relic and should be euthanized along with the xbox 360
@firelogic to be fair, a game like uncharted doesn't have half of the variables that come with open world/sandbox games like skyrim. just being able to pick up and move objects, alone, creates a nearly incalculable amount of outcomes. now imagine finally getting those variables under control so that when you pick up an orange, it doesn't go flying or interfere with other elements of the game. im sure it takes tons of time. then you have to optimize it for a whole other system while maintaining the control of the variables. point being - it takes tons of time and space/memory to make an open world/sandbox game. so hindered graphics on those games isn't due to lazy devs.
Wow, I need some of what you're smoking.
@Bumpmapping Are you insane? Have you not looked at the PC in the past couple of years?
throw petrol on the fire and do one, classic troll
Yeah, ok, and only xbox fanboys deny that most beautiffull games/exclusives are for ps3.. so, more complex, ok, but also more powerfull ("[email protected] cpu : a real monster in fact, and bluray drive + instal is better than slow and noisy dvd like yours) "And there's your reason why PS3 owners ended up with a lot of inferior multiplatform games. " only xbox fanboyz are really believing this non sens 'a lot of'...lol, most of the games are exactly the same (but ok, they should have been better on ps3)
It is an architectural nightmare. I don't know why, people are still under the impression that its immensely powerful. It was fast back in 05, yes. And for the price you couldn't get a CPU that could output the same FLOPS. IBM designed that CPU for that exact purpose, mass calculations, not rendering. Microsoft took the exact opposite approach. Give devs no access to the hardware, and augment their engines via DX9. What people never talk about, is that the next gen game systems, Xbox potentially could have 100% back compatibility by nature of their approach.
Hey what's up troll
ritsuka666, maybe a bit too black and white. The PS3 is a good console, and it has delivered some awesome games, both graphically a technically. But, I'm sure it could do a lot more if it wasn't for some of the limitations you mention. Slow Blu-ray drive, far to little memory are the main bottlenecks for the PS3. That's why load times are so bad and we often see low quality textures on the PS3. Only games that have been built from the ground up, around these limitations, really shine on the PS3. All other games suffer when compared to their X360 and PC counterparts. I really hope that for next generation Sony creates a better more streamlined console that is easy to develop for. I have 2 PS3 at home (bought one at launch) and I have an AlienWare PC, I find myself playing more and more on the PC. It's a pleasure to use with hires gfx, ssd disk, and tons of memory. The PS3 is really showing its age, everything is so slow, load-times are almost unbareable, it high time for a PS4 console now. I still play a lot of GT5 on it though.
yep thats why every single ps3 exlcusives looks x100 better than any xbox 360 exclusive...cause of all these craps u just mentioned...kid go back to gaylo
I still remember fanboys calling this CGI when it was shown off at E3. http://cdn3-www.playstation... And even after the game came out they claimed that this looked better. http://assets2.ignimgs.com/... The PS3 has already proven itself to be a very capable console in its generation.
The thing about the complex architecture, Sony was expecting PS3 to be the lead platform for most games, which didn't happen since Microsoft released the 360 before PS3. So the weird architecture was actually Sony's way of trying to keep devs from porting to other platforms. They failed. It actually almost backfired.
Microsoft released the 360 early with a huge failure rate to get out 1st, Sony expected everybody to wait for PS3 but a lot didn't
And there's your reason why PS3 owners ended up with a lot of inferior multiplatform games. Fanboys like to believe it was because of "lazy" developers and the XBox 360's supposedly outdated hardware. PS3 owners getting shortchanged on mulitplatform games lad little to do with either and plenty to do with Sony's own questionable hardware design choices. As a result, developers opting for rival consoles as the lead platform or making the game exclusive to them altogether.
Calm down he's boasting PS3's supposed power on static linear QTE style game with baked in visuals. More like an interactive cutscene than a game. Showing PS3 power would involve a game with dozens of AI on screen in a open world with coop and processing all the human and AI action with vehicles all over that place on the air and ground. Battlefield 3 would be a better test vs beyond(pc version of BF3 looks better than consoles and has more going on with more players because it requires the full capability of hardware, BF3 is one of the most technically demanding games on consoles with Skyrim being the most. Crysis 2, forza 4/H being in the same group
yes we know... a good ps3 game comes out with good graphics then BAM! its fake! its not real! its all scripted! it wont sell well! yeah we heard it all before.
"with Skyrim being the most" Says who? What is this based on? As far as I can tell Skyrim is a very poor game visually with not much going on, it's just spread out over a large world. Is this the "Skyrim doesn't run very well on PS3 so the PS3 is bad" argument again? Incase you didnt notice, it runs poorly on all platforms, even PC. The only difference is P.C guys can mod it to fix the mess. As for this "Calm down he's boasting PS3's supposed power on static linear QTE style game with baked in visuals. More like an interactive cutscene than a game." Supposed power? Uncharted, Killzone prove the PS3 is a powerful piece of kit. The interactive cutscene BS you're on about is just you being a fanboy. And have you even seen the God of war 3 visuals? the scale of the battles? & ascension looks EVEN better. Resistance 2 had 8 player online CO-OP with about 40 enemies on screen at a time and ran fine. Also had 60 player versus matches. MAG has maps that hold up to 128 players that also runs fine, you can literally just run across the map to see an entirely different battle going on.
shut up you mug..
Isn't halo 4 the first halo to be in 720p? I expected to see a wiiU demo look like this but not just yet I guess. http://www.youtube.com/watc... Even if some of the effects are baked in why do you care? are you a game dev? or a stupid xbox fan who needs to shut his mouth? PM me a game on xbox that looks better and not generic ok? ok..
What's this whole "interactive cutscene" that I always hear flying around? I BET that the same ones complaining are the ones who played and enjoy Quantic Dream's previous game, Fahrenheit (which followed the exact same format as Heavy Rain). Damn hypocrites. Fahrenheit, just like Heavy Rain and soon Beyond: Two Souls have just as much gameplay and control as they do cutscene. In fact, with Beyond, the ratio leans more towards gameplay than it ever has done. You are in control, you choose how to play, you move your character(s) around in the game world and interact with the environment in a traditional way. How is that description an "interactive cutscene" rather than a game? It sounds to me like ignorant, impatient and console kiddies that want big explosions and find adventure games boring, and can't face games that are different to the norm. All I see here is hate on QD's games now that they are exclusive to Sony.
your funny. You state BF3, then put forza in the same place. rofl, forza has the worst lighting i've seen in a recent racing game. I don't want to hear shit about hollywood studios lighting, its crap. Best lighting in a racing game goes to GT5, by a mile, the only other game is Project cars that is still in development. Crysis 2 ran more or less exactly the same on 360 and PS3. dishonoured uses unreal engine and looks great, because of the artistic nature of the game.
It's very clear from what is on offer next year that there is still plenty of power to access yet on the PS3. On a controversial note, I think it will take at least 2 years for the Wiiu to equal the quality of The Last Of Us. This could be something of a problem when advertising the Wiiu as a next generation console. Couple that with the Vita/PS3 combo and we could see history being made: Baring in mind that it's the 'concept' that Nintendo will advertise, It could be argued (or at least perceived) that the PS3/Vita combo is actually a new 'bridging' generation... PS3.5 if you will. Which of course will transfer over to the PS4 when It finally releases and the Vita becomes the alternative controller for that too. It's going to be one of the most interesting generations we've ever seen.
I don't think so, when we haven't seen games like Aliens CM running on the WiiU. TLOU looks good for a PS3 game, but the graphics aren't as great as you are making them out to be! I would go as far as to say even AC3 on WiiU is more detailed then TLOU, just compare the character models, scenery and environments from each game...
I think the problem the wii u will have is that its going to get ports of games coming on the " last Gen consoles".
@Ck1x thanks for the laugh dude... ;)
i think that because devs are still squeezing power out of the system it's a testament to the strength of the hardware, honestly. sure, lazy devs will be lazy and not take advantage of that power, but at this point i don't think that's the architecture's fault.
There's ALOT of PS3 games that run 1080p 60fps, but is that then end be all?? NO ALOt of games run 720p and look and run just as good you can't tell when res a game is until your TV tells you or some1 on a website tells you, So stop worrying about 1080p and enjoy the games.
yeah...no. Most console games are actually below 720p, they are then upscaled to 720p n 1080p. They are not "native"...and yes there is a difference.
I will only be convinced if MGS:GZ ended up looking exactly as we say it in the very first video. Other than that, the device is already maxed in every aspect.
Yawn. Powerful in what context? Against the other consoles? A PC? The ps3 is a good lil console but still not this great powerful console. AAA titles are not running 1080p at 30 fps even.
If the PS3 can produce nice visuals, imagine what an i7/690 PC can do? Incredible eye-popping visuals!!!
Bring out the PS4 and even lazy developers can produce great visuals. Until PS4 comes, I'm sticking to PC for all multiplats.
surprised by cut scenes and timed button presses? idk how far you can take the gameplay with a game like this. guess will see
no doubt, first party games from Sony is always mind blown.
They just can't be beat. I was playing Uncharted 3 an hour ago and my jaw still dropped when entering the city surrounded by sand.
The plane crash sequence followed by the desert scene and the ghost town are still to be beaten by any game (even on pc) nowadays, it's just too damn good, both gameplay and graphic wise. I still can't understand people who completely bash UC3 when it has such mindblowing moments.
@OMNI don't go too far. we see games on PC crush UC3
@Grap Just because it is on PC doesn't make it crush consoles. Most PC games still don't put as much effort into games as developers like Naughty Dog. Many newer PC games still aren't far ahead of Uncharted. I game only on PC and I know this. Many PC games are better visually but they certainly don't crush the best looking console games.
and that's the only reason, because those are 1st party titles where whole dev team dedicates its powers to one hardware :)
So what's holding Microsoft first party developers back?
Busy making profits, you know keeping the company in business. ;] (Before I get flooded with disagrees, know that I'm being playful, aka; joking.)
Busy making kinect games and avatar clothes :)
Nothing. MS first party games/exclusives still offer the best performance/visuals on the system when compared to multiplats. The only reason you don't see games that look as good as Beyond and Uncharted 3 is because, regardless of developer friendliness, the 360 simply isn't as powerful as the PS3.
Their reliance on the Unreal Engine 3.
absolutely "Realisation of the characters in Beyond is exceptional: skin shaders, materials, lighting and animation is second-to-none. Quantic Dream promised to take performance capture to the next level after LA Noire and it's difficult to argue that the results are anything other than superb. As with all the images on this page, clicking on the thumbnails gives you the full image." "The overall impression is that Beyond looks to be setting a new standard for what is possible on current-generation consoles. In many ways it looks too good to be true, to the point where quite rightly you may be asking if this is real, and if so, what compromises are in effect? A forensic look at the footage available does indeed suggest that it is all generated in real-time by the PlayStation 3, and that stands to reason as it does seem to be the case that frame-rate is rather choppy in the gameplay materials released so far. The arrival of powerful light sources in the scenes does seem to see frame-rate tumble." http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
I don't know why Quantic Dream doesn't just make the game 24 fps, just like a movie. This would allow for a more consistent frame rate, and would probably allow for maybe more post processing effects.