Top
130°

Maxing out the PS3/360: Not this Generation

RevoltTech Writes:

Every time a new game is announced, or comes close to release, developers fan the flames of hype in many ways. One of the most common ways being the phrase, "We have maxed out the (insert console here)".

Fans go crazy at what possibilities this could bring, and developers enjoy the extra hype until the claim gets shot down in a few months by a different developer with a new game.

Read Full Story >>
revolttech.webs.com
The story is too old to be commented.
milksoles2788d ago

Isnt it obvious they wanna sell their games so they sing the same mantra every time.

In truth if consoles were that powerful we would have all games running in 1080p 60fps 4x-8x AA since that's not happening. In fact lately we are seeing more and more Sub HD titles. Everything points to consoles having been maxed out a long time a go.

raztad2788d ago

Dont agree. Games on the PS3 push the bar in every iteration. There is more going for a game than just resolution.

The best looking game on consoles is GoW3 running at 40+ fps, v-locked, MLAA(=4xMSAA or more) and 720p. Let's imagine for a second, GoW4 is announced. As the gap between 1080p and 720p is huge (1080p = 2 x 720p) I would not expect future interactions to reach 1080p but it will definitely improve substantially in terms of framerate, locking the game at 60fps, and everything else from textures to shadows.

Other interesting game is GT5. We know game is v-locked, 60fps, 4xMSAA but the res (if I get it well) is 1280x1080.

I mean it's obvious first party devs (the only that can afford to squeeze the PS3 power) are producing better looking games in every opportunity. They may not be 1080p but tend to look noticeable better than the previous iteration, how does that translate to "maxed out a long time ago"? it doesnt.

milksoles2788d ago Show
hoops2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

Most games are running at 30fps 720p or less with little to no AA. MLAA is not the same thing. These consoles simply do not have the bandwidth and memory/power to run graphic intensive games at 1080p with 4xAA at 60fps. Not this generation. Console devs are actually quite genius imo the way they can squeeze juice out of these consoles making some games look fantastic.
There are many tricks they use and that extends the life of these consoles. But by sheer technology wise these consoles are maxxed and last generation. No Ansiotropic filtering. No tessalation. Last generation shader models. Last generation Anti-Alaising modes.

meetajhu2788d ago Show
shazui1232788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

Digital foundry said it was at least as good as 4xmsaa, you ignorant idiot http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
In fact it waas said to surpass it and in instances to be comparable to 16 or more sample AA. This was the MLAA used in the saoteur, that found in GOW3 is significantly better, how do your words taste? :P
ALso, most ps3 games use QAA, GT5 uses 4xmsaa in 720p with 500,000 polygon car models, 16 on track at any one time, Crysis chaaracter models, when run in very high, use up to 80,000 polygons, those are the main characters.
@ hoops every ps3 game uses anisoptric filtering and anti aliasing, in fact MLAA is a superior AA technique even to 32xMSAA in some cases, as has been proven, so what are you trying to prove? The best currently available games are exclusives. Exclusives that cannot be found on the pc. We both know that, due to ps3 games like uncharted 2, kz2, heavy rain, gt5 etc. looking better than any game across any platform bar crysis and warhead on pc, that the ps3 really is holding up very well despite its lesser power than many PCs, developers actually utilise its power and as nothing bar crysis looks better than UC2, KZ2, GOW3, GT5, Heavy Rain, it is obvious developers dont push pc hardware as far. Probably because it's not a sensible thing to do in a business sense

@ below, GT5 looks more photoreal than stock crysis on a 1080p display, my friend. You need to understand something, firstly English. Secondly more polygons allow for more complex animations, a smoother, more detailed model etcetera. You need a highly talented programmer to optimise for consoles, thats why despite their lesser power most ps3 exclusives look bettter than anything bar crysis. Crysis has 80k main character models, gt5 has 500k car models, 16 at once...
GOW3 is v-synced.
Uncharted 2 is v-synced.
@ meetahju, again, read nycredudes comment and read the analysis where it is PROVEN that gow3 runs with V-SYNC enabled. Just because you only have a 2007 game to use as your personal graphical trophy doesnt mean you have to ignore facts, Nothing but crysis looks better than gt5, uc2, gow3, gt5, heavy rain, kz2. All the games Ive just mentioned have gained more critical success than any exclusive pc game released in the last 3 years.

meetajhu2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

It will look good only on 720p display not on 1080. You can see the jaggieness. You need to understand something. More no. of polygons is given only for better animations like in Uncharted 2 or God of War 3. GT5 doesn't reqiure a high polygon model its requires highly talented texture artist to create low memory textures look like high quality. Crysis has high poly models but stupid animations and rag doll hit response system.

@up
You need to understand and know something my friend i'm not here to flame but to correct your mistakes. Ps3 or 360 is not powerful but Sony devs are...

@nycredude

What???????? Can you please tell me how you forced you montior to run a game with V-SYNC? If you do i would actually give you and award for it. God of War 3 doesn't use V-Sync! You got no idea why a game screen tears.

@sahar243

So your saying GOd of War 3 runs at 1080p?

nycredude2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

Meetajhu

I suggest you check out the GOW 3 dev interview at Eurogamer cause you have no clue what you are talking about. GOW 3 IS V-sync. And btw I run all games on my asus laptop v-synced cause I hate screen tears and I don't bog down the graphics card with AA because when you play at 1080p or higher res you don't need AA.

Edit: It's also common knowledge that developers are able to render games in 1080p but choose not to because they feel that it isn't worth the graphical trade in. Fact is that the resolution is not as important as some of the other details when rendering a good looking game. Post processing, motion blur, dof, debris, frame rate and art design are all integral parts of rendering a good looking game and it's not worth it to sacrifice those in favor of a higher resolution.

The proof is in the pudding. Alot of good looking games on both consoles are not in full hd.

Edit: I would make a video of me playing Crysis on 1080p with all settings on high and running heaven 2.0 with v-sync enabled but I don't want to waste my time. Just check this link to the Digital Foundry analysis of GOW 3. V-sync is enabled.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

Cenobia2788d ago

This is what your last comment makes me think of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

sahar2432788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

on 1080P you will barley see any jaggies even without AA
the higher the resolution the less AA is needed

shazui1232788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

Im glad someone knows what theyre talking about :) thing is, Ive noticed a lot of ignorant PC fanboys on this site recently, just like meetahju and apparently hoops, that know nothing of what they talk about. Because they have the disillusion that nothing on consoles can look better than even multiplats on their beloved pc they choose to miss out on the very best games of this gen and settle only for mutiplat games, I feel sorry for them :( I, for one, play multiplats maxed out on my Asus G73JH or my desktop and play the very best exclusive games on my ps3 :D all IMHO

Resolution does not equal graphical quality, it sure helps, but higher polygon models, better post processing effects, higher AA level (perhaps the daddy, MLAA) higher texture resolutions etcetera can all bee gained by dropping the res to 720p which is much more beneficial than running less in 1080p. At an appropriate viewing distance the human eye can notice only detail up to 1080p. Anything higher is useless unless you are using supersampling AA (in which case youll still be seeing 1080p or whatever anyway)

@ below, indeed. Thats why I stated that GOW3's use of MLAA was far superior, although I didn't know that the AA used in the ps3 saboteur wasn't MLAA, all I knew was that GOW3s use was superior, thanks for telling me :)

@ nycredude
Lol. Would a laptop-five be inappropriate? :P Its pretty beastly isnt it, not too keen on the ass on it though ;) Runs anything I throw at it. Apart from the tunexp program that, as I shouldve guessed from the name, runs only on xp. It made my bootup time only 3 seconds... and disabled every service on my laptop. I couldnt even use system restore :( had to reinstall win7... I know exactly what you mean though, I think its just that they spend so much money on it, believing its superior, that they delude themselves into believing so, to prove their purchase. I mean I love my laptop and all, but I dont use it for games as much as I use it for work. Agreed though, the margin between UC2, KZ2, GOW3 etc. and Crysis is tiny, I would go as far to say that recent GT5 screenshots and videos look a certain amount better than crysis, although that statement will lend me disagrees.
PC, if you have the money, is far more powerful than any console without a doubt. However this power is wasted in games (not applications however, many applications are well optimised)

yewles12788d ago

The MLAA in God of War III is ACTUAL Morphalogical Anti Aliasing compared to the simple edge detection used in The Saboteur. Digital Foundry were corrected on the situation.

nycredude2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

@ shazui

Hahahaha I just bought the same laptop you have. i have the Asus G73jha-1 and it freaking rocks man! I completely agree with you the only real advantage PC games have over consoles is the resolution because of unlimited memory and hardware upgrades. I am not saying pc isn't more powerful but developers don't push the limits with better codes on the pc cause there is no need. They just wait for a new videocard to release.

I actually am one who believes that although Crysis looks great on my laptop, when I output to my hdtv it doesn't look light years ahead of the best console games, i.e. Killzone 2 or Uncharted 3 or GOW 3 like alot of Crysis defenders make you believe.

@Shazui

Yeah I was a pc gamer back in the days but haven't had a gaming rig for at least 8 years. When I read about this beast of a laptop I couldn't resist. I kept reading everywhere how Crysis this and Crysis that so I was hyped as hell to play a crazy looking game but it's over hyped. Maybe I am spoiled by my Ps3 but it didn't blow me away.

Imagine if Sony 1st parties made optimized games on PC? It would look photorealistic!

BTW The ass on the laptop helps cool the machine so although it's not that good looking I appreciate it not frying the gpu!

Dance2788d ago

some of those best looking game are very linear or have fixed camera

iamgoatman2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

@shazui123

Funny how you mention you've seen "a lot of ignorant PC fanboys on this site recently" when you're one of the most ignorant and clueless morons on this entire site.

You repeatedly turn up, spout utter nonsense and when someone hands you simple facts you put your fingers in your ears and hum. But of course you feel justified because your fellow morons will back up your ridiculous claims with their own mindless drivel.

You'd probably find more intelligent and logical conversation in a children's playground.

Edit: btw, you cannot have a game v-sync at 40fps, it doesn't work like that. You can have the game run freely where it averages 40fps, or even cap artificially, but if the frame rate fluctuates, you will have screen tearing. V-sync is a means of limiting the frame rate to coincide with a screens refresh rate. For example, most screens have a refresh rate of 60hz, so a game will be v-synced to 60fps, with the frame rate being cut to half that if the fps drops by even one frame. Don't believe me, do some research of your own.

sikbeta2788d ago

Guys Remember what Game Squeeze All The Potential of The PS2, GOW2, a Game that came out like 7 Years After The Release of The PS2 (2000), So this Time I'm sure is Going to be The same Thing With The PS3...

raztad2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

@metha, hoops

I highly recommend you to get your facts straight.

MLAA in GOW3 is AT LEAST 4xMSAA but in most cases is even better:

"A few months before shipping, we finally reached a quality similar to MSAA2x on almost the entire screen, and a few weeks later, all the pixelated edges disappeared and the quality became significantly higher than MSAA2x or even MSAA4x on all our still shots, without any exception. In motion it became globally better too, few minor issues remained which just can’t be solved without sub-pixel sampling."

http://www.realtimerenderin...

Regarding the v-sync:

"The framerate for God of War III runs between 30 and 60 frames-per-second with v-sync enabled to stop tearing"

"We’ve also got some good code in place–that you can’t tell is working–which helps to make sure frame rate drops are gracefully executed. By graceful I mean that you won’t see any tearing."

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz...

Lets forget about the technical details and just say GoW3 has NO tearing.

@yewels

You are TOTALLY right my friend. The Saboteour doesnt use MLAA

DaTruth2788d ago

You got to love the 360 fanboys who have finally realized that the PS3 is better and more powerful than the 360 and are still bitter, so they now become PC fanboys so they can still troll PS3 news and get owned when they get caught not knowing what they're talking about!

That is why there is this new influx of PC trolls in console news!

hennessey862788d ago

and ive only been blown away by the graphics of uc2, alan wake, heavy rain, gears 1 n 2, and mass effect 1 n 2 killzone 2 and god of war 3 didnt impress me tho wot ive seen of number 3 do impress me and gt5 oh my god thats looking gud sos gears 3

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 2788d ago
throw_this_away2788d ago

I also disagree. If every game ran at 1080 it would not mean that a gaming console is "maxed out". Again, each console has limited hardware resources... and a lot of programmers choose to invest hardware processing power in elements other than resolution.

I look at it this way: A game has 4 things (oversimplification!!!) that all require hardware processing power: 1. graphics 2. Animation 3. Frame rate 4. game logic/AI. A programmer has limited hardware resources to make the best of the above 4. If you want 1080 you might have to sacrifice frame rate, or AI, or whatever.

It is like someone giving you 10,000$ dollars to renovate a house. You can have the world's best deck... but a crappy kitchen and bathroom. Or you can have a good kitchen and bathroom, but no deck. Or you can be mediocre at everything.

Some programmers get smart by making code run more efficiently, thus taking less of your hardware resources. Others get clever with game design such that they design games max out 3 of the above 4 at any one time. Need a high frame rate? They will minimize AI or animations. Need better resolution? It will be in a slower part of the game that needs less of a frame-rate. etc.

IdleLeeSiuLung2788d ago

Another thing to add is, great developers optimize what you see on screen or experiences, by removing stuff you don't notice most of the time. They also come up with smart algorithms to process certain tasks faster.

All of this is more an issue of resources and what your finances are willing to pay. The more you put in, the more you get out until it hits a ceiling where it isn't worth putting in more effort.

DrDreadlox2788d ago

I don't think it's a simple matter of just hardware. I think game development cost plays a major role. It takes time and resources to make high quality games and I think developers find that it's more feasible to spend their efforts on other aspects.

The other problem is that third party devs are mostly content to release average looking games and Xbox just can't seem to produce a good contender. That only leaves Sony's first party studios, but with no competition, the motivation is not that strong. And with Sony being the graphical leaders, they can advance games at their own pace. If you think about it, it's in Sony's interest financially to extend the generation for as long as possible, and MS will not complain either.

I think that towards the end of this gen we will see widespread 1080p games on the ps3 at least. By then the engines will be mature enough to produce such quality games at reasonable cost. IMO of course.

solideagle12788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

8 years later GOW said hi....its on going process.

by the way the game i wanted most is Shadow hearts 4 damn very overlooked game. or re master Shadow hearts 2:covenant that was one brilliant game. i miss that time.......

thanks

Edit: anyone know about shadow hearts developers or what happened?

UnSelf2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

examples of systems being maxed out:

Ninja Gaiden Black (Xbox)

God of War 2 (ps2)

Okami (ps2)

GTA: San Andreas (ps2....supermaxed)

Black (ps2....word was it was on par with Xbox version)

no game this gen has maxed out any system. However it does seem that the Xbox360 is reaching its limit. Now i dnt know if thats because of its lack of originality with their titles in COMPARISON to the ps3's (im not saying the 360 isnt original), or if it did in fact reachh its hardware limitation.

But Halo Reach is looking mighty fine so i hope im wrong

edit: i forgot about MGS3, but no game pushed the ps2 further than San An....lets be real. The amount of shit u can do is just unparallel, coupled with a full fledged storyline in an open dynamic city.

vividamage1232788d ago

hahaha San Andreas?
your kidding me man hahaha

MGS3 pushed the boundaries of the PS2.

StanLee2788d ago

Black on PS2 was no where near the XBox version. Seriously, I had a PS2 but the difference between the two were like the differences between Final Fantasy XIII.

dizzleK2788d ago

i'd say killzone pushed the ps2 the hardest, you could almost smell smoke lol.

Inside_out2788d ago ShowReplies(7)
Shaman2788d ago

Its SUPER hard to max out this consoles cus not only are they multithreaded,meaning you will NEVER run your code efficiently enough 100% of time but they also have quite capable though old gpus that you can always find more and more efficient technique to exploit their power.

One thing is that ps3 for example wont go much further then UC2,GOW III and KZ3 but its not maxed.You wont get same performance as you would get from first and second to third and fourth year of lifecycle but they will be improvements

pimpmaster2788d ago

i think that both consoles are maxed out at this point. both have weaknesses and strengths, just look at ps3 version of RDR from the screen shots i saw it looks like ps3 version is slightly inferrior but at the same times the exclusive games blow away the 360 in terms of graphics. the 360 seems to really have been maxed out with gears 2 setting the bench mark in terms of graphics on it which in reality looks exactly the same as it did in gears 1. alan wake has some great graphics but its just a bunch of trees so it doesnt take much power to do it. lol

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2788d ago
keysy4202788d ago

butwould you want to wait that long

throw_this_away2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

Developers keep getting more out of the systems not because they are able to get more hardware performance (duh... they maxed hardware usage out already), but because they find more efficient ways to run code and manage hardware resources. Thus, they make code MORE EFFICIENT, and in the end you get more game for your processing power. I love consoles for this reason, because it forces developers to make better designed games with smarter programming.

"More efficient" is just not as sexy as "maxed out."

SpoonyRedMage2788d ago

I don't think 'maxing out' is possible to be honest, look at the DS. With it's meager power you think it'd maxed out at launch but the games keep getting more and more impressive.

GAM3R7l2788d ago (Edited 2788d ago )

...to what devs can do with aging hardware. MS has released a couple key updates that included DirectX improvements. The 360 was DX9-based at launch. Games like Metro 2033 and Alan Wake show some of the new effects that are now possible, given the added DX11-like features. Of course, including those effects can hurt overall performance, like tearing, framerate drop, and lower resolution...but overall the graphical improvements make it worth it.

GAM3R7l2787d ago (Edited 2787d ago )

...it's just as well you didn't bother replying...as is your common practice. It's rather stupid to expose yourself with comments proving your complete ignorance of the facts. Stupid fanboys. :)

Show all comments (73)
The story is too old to be commented.