How Much of the PlayStation 3′s Power Do The Exclusives Use?

GB: "Just like its predecessor the PlayStation 3 is an amazing machine and for any developer to exploit the capabilities of the hardware, he/she has to be well acquainted with the architecture and the internal processes of the machine. Today, we take a look at how much percentage of the PlayStation 3’s power did some of the well known exclusives utilized."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Shubhankar2986d ago

Brilliant article, really well researched and good info. But I'm not so sure about MGS4 using 100% :o

Vicodin2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

The 0-100% question that gets asked of developers is way too simple because it means different things to different developers. What Konami considers 100 percent is going to very different from what Naughty Dog does.

Redrum0592986d ago

some of these talented devs always find some new trick to push quality and power a little more for their next game.

Uncharted3, im waiting for ya.

Vicodin2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

>some of these talented devs always find some new trick to push quality and power a little more for their next game


The PS3 is almost identical in design to the PS2. We are seeing the same incredibly growth in PS3 graphics engines we saw with the PS2. PS2 graphical masterpieces like God of War didn't arrive until the PS2's fifth year. The PS3 is only in its fourth year.

The PS3 has another seven or so years of sales. We will certainly see games no one thought were possible in the upcoming years. Just like back in 2004 when no one had ever seen God of War level graphics on the PS2 up to that point.

The PS2,PS3 are very much like older consoles in the way they are designed to be coded for. You work on a much lower machine level than a desktop PC. That makes all the PC developers complain because they can't jump dump their PC games on the platform and cry about the system being 'hard teh program'.

But for real console developers are a dream come true. The hardware is just waiting for you to find amazing ways to use it.

It's a very different mindset compared to the PC market where you get graphical upgrades and leaps pretty much only through newer graphics cards.

darthv722986d ago

that is the best comment right there. The limits of a system are really within the creativity of the developers.

Case in point. Looking the the early games of the Genesis and comparing them with ones near its end you can see that regardless of the same exact hardware. The better the devs got with the programming, the better and more creative the games became.

It is like that with almost all consoles. Time and effort (and creative minds) can make what you couldnt imagine, possible. I am not interested in what game uses what % of a system.

I am interested in developers delivering the best experience they can with the game at hand.

cliffbo2986d ago

when devs say they've used 100% of the potential, they are referring to the potential they are able to tap with the engine they have at the moment.

Shadow Flare2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Someone a long time ago on here (forgot who) described processor usage best. He said using 100% of the processor is like packing clothes into a luggage bag. You can either throw all the clothes in unorganised and use up all the bags space, or you can neatly fold all the clothes and use all the bags space. In both instances you're using 100% of the bags space, but in the latter, you can fit more clothes in. So saying they used 100% of the cell processor maybe isn't lying, but there are probably more efficient ways they can use the space and get more out of the cell. PS3 games are continually looking better and better, and that shows no sign of stopping. They're just working out how to fit more clothes in.

pixelsword2986d ago

I'll put it this way; if you look into the technical aspects of games coming out today, most of the exclusives do not cover what some of the older games have done already due to ambition versus dollars, yet even those older games were not running even half of the power as described by the developers. I don't trust the "numbers" game, but one developer I do take the most stock from was Factor 5, and when they said that there was so much more that could be taken from the system, I am inclined to accept their assessment.

bananlol2986d ago

@Shadow Flare
Were going to try to explain why these articles are pointless, but you summed it up pretty good. Great job!

BulletToothtony2986d ago

Ps3 Exclusives use about 165% of the XBox 360's Power ;)

Motion2986d ago

I don' think that percentage of power is really a good way to look at it. You can have a terribly programed engine that looks like crap, does hardly anything, and uses 100% of processor power, or a game that looks great, is well optimized, and uses only a portion of the max power. It really comes down to how well the code is written, optimized and then utilized on the system.

AKS2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Are these percentages the Cell or everything? I would think the Cell could do many more computations, but there's only so much RAM and other resources to manage and deliver that power.

I think getting efficient use of the power and finding workarounds for bottlenecks (MLAA looks terrific for minimal cost) are more important than percentages.

Djinn2986d ago


Umm, MGS2 came out in 2001 and it shits all over GOW in terms of grpahics. Thus your logic is flawed.

MNicholas2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

... is actually faster at running programmable shader code than either the PS3's RSX or the Xbox's Xenos GPU.

Don't forget, RSX is no slouch. It's basically an overclocked 7900GT except with higher shader:rop ratio. The exact same shader architecture (8vs,24ps) that can effortlessly run Gears of War on the PC at maximum settings at 1280x960.

Yet, in God of War 3, simply by moving AA from the GPU to the Cell processor, they boosted RSX performance by 17% while boosting AA quality to far beyond anything previously seen on consoles.

They also moved vector based motion blur, depth of field, and much more to the Cell.

The result is visuals so far beyond expectations for consoles that it's difficult to blame those (including many on N4G) for mistaking the early God of War 3 videos for CGI.


To understand Cell processor usage, think of it as a bucket. You can think you filled it up with big rocks but between there's still more than 50% empty space. Then you try pebbles, then you try sand, then you try water. Only then can you say it is truly full. That's why it takes a long time to max out something as complex as the Cell processor.

Computersaysno2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Cell is not a GPU. Its not faster than RSX or Xenos with shader code. They have very specialised long render pipelines. Its what they are specifically designed to do.

RSX has a faster core and shader speed than 7900GT but half the bus bandwidth and half the memory bandwidth, with half the ROPs. As a result its effectively slower than a 7900GT. RSX also has 256mb, 7900GT was most commonly sold as 512mb versions. It certainly wouldnt share 7900GT's performance characteristics in a PC.

PS3 relies on developers exploiting CELL, which is not always very easy. Exclusives will go on pushing the machine right up to it is discontinued. Looking at the SPE utilisation on killzone 2, its clear there is still plenty of room to improve task scheduling and squeeze even more out.

AndrewRyan2986d ago

Anyone who expects a much better game from uncharted 3 from uncharted 2 is a fool. There is really no way they could make the graphics better, maybe a LITTLE bit but we would not even notice.

raztad2986d ago


RSX has access to the main RAM pool, not only to its 256M VRAM. So it is 512M total available for RSX to use, but they are accessed at different speeds. It has to be hellish to split memory usage, so probably amateur devels just use 256 fully and under use the other 256.

Cell is not regular CPU either. In fact it works more like a specialized GPU than a CPU.

JBaby3432986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

CELL does do shader ops better than GPUs but only vertex shaders. Pixel shaders are still handled by RSX. I believe Insomniac was among the first to start doing this. But Killzone 2 also moves shader ops onto the CELL. rticles/0108/files/spu_shaders . pdf ferred-Rendering-in-Kill-Zone

I admit I don't understand everything in these articles but they seem to support my statements.

bill021382986d ago

Cell is faster at math calculations. Thats why its used in supercomputers instead of RSX or Xenos.

Also to the point about RSX and the 7900 GT the RSX is faster at vertex and pixel shading than the 7900 GT.

You can actually run Crysis on a 7900 GT with most settings on high and a couple on low and almost do 30 fps.

Computersaysno2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Ahhhhh dear. Where to start.

I was aware RSX has access to the entire memory pool, but most developers rarely use this ability, because there is a bandwidth penalty to be had. In any case, it doesnt make it at all possible for RSX to use more than a few megabytes extra whereas a dedicated Pc card that has 512mb memory can use it all for video.

CELL is actually not faster at vertex shading than any GPU, just RSX. The reason vertices are shifted onto CELL is mainly because RSX is very slow at them. Its a severe weakness of PS3 compared to 360, where Xenos has the ability to use all its unified pipelines for vertex shading, giving it a peak vertex fillrate six times that of RSX in PS3.

''Cell is faster at math calculations. Thats why its used in supercomputers instead of RSX or Xenos.''

You couldnt be more wrong if you tried. The fastest supercomputers in the world use GPGPUs as they are much, much faster than any CPU out there for floating point (including cell) and give better performance/watt. This isnt 2007 any more, the fastest supercomputer in the world uses in conjuction with AMD opterons over 7000 Nvidia tesla GPUs. The GPUs provide the lion share of performance.

Your point about 7900GT is still moot because the ability to actually do the requisite shader ops per cycle relies on there being sufficient memory bandwidth, that 7900GT has, and RSX does not. Please stop comparing RSX to a 7900GT, RSX is most definitely considerably slower overall. One only has to look at games that grace PC AND PS3 that are much much slower on RSX than a 7900GT.

For example F.E.A.R will run on a 7900GT with maximal details, 1600 x 1200 4x AA and over 30 frames a second (this test also uses a very elderly AMD X2 4800+ CPU which predates PS3's release by 18 months) On PS3 it runs 20-30fps, medium details, no AA, 1280 x 720. Many people talk about how much easier it is to optimise for a fixed platform like PS3 over PC, in that case, it makes the gap seem even less favourable to RSX does it not?

ProjectVulcan2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Been gaming for years on PC. No way RSX is faster than a 7900GT overall. I should know, I have had a 7900GT- and a 7900GS. And a 7800GTX. And a X1950XT.

I also know that Crysis barely makes 25 frames a second all medium settings on an X1950XT at a HD rez, and thats a faster card than a 7900GT.

MeatPopsicle2986d ago

It is staggering and kind of sad to see in late 2010 people like Computersaysno spouting nothing but inane garbage about console hardware.

It would be one thing if people like Computersaysno were just parroting the bullshit spread by the idiots who post on sites like beyond3d back in 2005.

But late 2010?

You would think anyone not entirely braindead would have after five years realized all this crap they've filled their heads with is just that, crap.

aliveinboston2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Dude, I dont comment much on N4G but seriously give it a rest. No offense bro but your clearly way out of your league and talking about things you dont understand just yet.



Dont knock b3d, man. Nowadays theyre pretty good about keeping fanboys from all sides out which is why actual developers post there.

Computersaysno2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

It is staggering and kind of sad to see in late 2010 people like MeatPopsicle spouting nothing but inane garbage and personal insults without justifying themselves.

It would be one thing if people like Meatpopsicle were just parroting the bullshit spread by the idiots fanboys who post on sites like Sony defence force back in 2005.

But late 2010?

You would think anyone not entirely braindead would have after five years realized all this crap they've filled their heads with is just that, crap.

No surprise to others how people get less than 5 bubbles on here with such evidently useless comments.

@ aliveinboston I admit I'm way out of my league on a site like this, where people dont know the difference between their ass and their bus width or their elbow and their GPGPU. Bit too complicated for all of you. Still claiming things like CELL is faster than a GPU for floating point ops!

Christ! Get with the programmme and stop reading 5 year old PS3 fanboy sites. RSX is a crippled Geforce 7800 GPU and only balancing load onto CELL makes it able to perform better than 360. Not many developers can do this well, which is why PS3 has better looking exclusives, but most multiplat games run better on 360 even to this day.

Vicodin2986d ago

Sorry, the Beyond3d forums are a cesspool of bullshit.

At work when some tester or artist says something inane about console hardware the engineers will usually respond with 'did you read that on beyond3d?'

mrcash2986d ago

They can't push any more power, but they can push more quality with the power they have.

ProjectVulcan2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

There are many operations PS3 is better at than 360 and many 360 is better suited to than PS3. One of those things 360 for sure has a lead in is vertex fillrate. Xenos unified shader architecture means that it can roughly match RSX maximum vertex fillrate with a single cluster 8 of its 48 unified shader pipelines. The more shader units you employ on Xenos for vertex operations, the faster it will get. It can use all 48 pipelines for vertex if need be and be hugely faster than RSX but in practice it doesnt work that way. However it can still employ much better vertex fillrate than RSX possibly could manage in a game, with say 16 or 24 shaders running on high vertex workload scenes.

Many developers have acknowledged this problem and so for a while now PS3 developers have gone searching for the vertex performance to try and keep up with xenos. This is why vertex shading has been taken onto cell as well. It helps a lot, but it can never completely match xenos for vertex speed. A huge benefit of unified shader architecture.

aliveinboston2985d ago (Edited 2985d ago )

"The fool doth thinks he is wise but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"

As for beyond3d, I read that forum too. Its run by actual industry professionals who know what they're talking about. Developers from some of the best games write on beyond3d because its a controlled environment that focuses on technical issues rather than brand alliances.

If you know someone who knocks it it's probably because they got banned for being raging fanboys. A lot of IT workers are extreme fanboys. I know because I work with them every day.

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 2985d ago
vhero2986d ago

I say who cares?? Really? The fanboys might but gamers don't... We just want good looking games that don't kill our consoles.

ilikestuff2986d ago

gt5 is probably the closest to using 100%, uncharted 2 looked great, metal gear looked great, and i might sound crazy but i think lair used alot of the ps3, it had some great graphics and in some parts it had a lot going on on the screen at once

ct032986d ago

"How much of its power does it use?" is a silly question to ask in the first place.

The Cell processor probably has plenty of computing power left in most cases. The PS3's "power" is not where the bottleneck is.
Instead, the memory budget and GPU speed limit how much of this power can be used.

gunnerforlife2986d ago

look at the gameplay in killzone jheeez still my top fps of this gen

visualb2986d ago

a game can use up 100% of the PS3...under one code

then another game, with much better code / optimized code comes along, and does the same as the previous game, but only using 80%, allowing an extra 20%

so MGS4 could have used 100% when it was done, because it was so long ago, and so unoptimized.

thus why I feel these questions are too relative to keep track of =|

I don't care, all I know is there's 1 important factor that doesn't depend on power:

gameplay, and even so, PS3 exclusives have a very good variety of that =)

PS360fanboy2986d ago

Lol, good article, developers had it coming=P

ApexHell2986d ago

it depends on how the dev uses the hardware.

i could make pong for ps3 and let it use 100% cpu.

2986d ago Replies(1)
blahblah2986d ago

anyone with coding 101 can tell you how much of utilization some software uses is not important. the only thing that matters is how you optimized code.

you could as well do something like:
while (1 == 1) {}
on each spu (and disabling infinite loop detection) and use 100% of the ps3. i doubt you'd enjoy this 100% usage.

another thing on ps3 is how well you combined sync/async threads and how well you grouped spu. threat is as pc and use sync threads (in a way wrong for cell) and ps3 will just burn utilization for no gain again.

and another thing is how well and uninterruptible you stream data into cell and how efficient your loading is.

with efficient coding you can get better done game using 3% than inefficient 100%. as long as you find new ways to optimize algorithms you can't know where 100% barrier is.

gameraxis2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

between third party (konami, square) and First party (Santa monica and ND) their games didn't come close to the GOW's and Uncharteds of the sony first party line up... so when the FF13 creator says he used 100 percent of the ps3's power, thats what HIS TEAMS code came up with, maybe not fully optimizing to get the most out of the ps3... and i realize that GOW is kinda a section by section stream so their able to cram more in, but when was the last time u saw a ff game as linear as 13... the thing about this "how much power of the ps3 did u use" is a constantly changing revelation. Even naughty dogs U2, they'll probably refine their code even more and realized that their past estimates were off... the quotes from these developers can ONLY be based on the time they made the game and how optimized their code was for that time... because i don't care how good it looked, MGS and FF13 did NOT use 100% of the ps3's power, it might have filled a layer of the blueray for uncompressed audio and video, but you people have to understand, new streaming techniques and optimized code makes this "percentage thing" irrelevant, the only one there that i can believe to be true is GOW, because Stig KNOWS as mindblowing and cinematic GOW3 was they could have made it another 12 hours long, etc etc... but it would take 10 years to develop he's aware given their target for release and resources given (almost unlimited, because it IS sony that made GOW) they tapped 50% with highly optimized code, streaming techniques, MLAA etc, wait until new titles from first party devs start using the close to 70 mb more ram sony just relased by optimizing the XMB... ps3 still has a LOOOONG way to go until tapped...GT may be another accurate one, but i'd have to see the load of content, and techniques its uses to have any opinion on that... but given polyphany's constant adding of features and postponing the release date, i believe their contantly comming up with ways to optimizie the code and add more features etc. What i'm saying is it total agreeance with "blahblah" above...

DigitalAnalog2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

But I think they're confusing PS3's power against Cell's % usage.

For instance, GOWIII uses less than 50% of the PS3's power. They are maybe talking about the entire aspects of both the Cell and RSX combined in said engine.

ND uses 100% SPU's (none being idle). This points out how much they're tasking the Cell to run the game but it's NOT the same as 100% PS3's power.


This is stated again in Killzone 3:


In hindsight, anybody can push the PS3's power to it's "limits" but it's the engine that determines how much better that power can be utilized.

Note: CryEngine 3 is supposedly using the maximum specs for the PS3. This is not the same as Uncharted 2 using maximum specs for their engine.

-End statement

Christopher2986d ago

I hate the % game. As Vicodin said, it means different things to different developers. And, furthermore, there's a lot of different ways to use the processing power. For the most part, how and what percentage of power a game uses is really not at all comparable nor does it say that if a company uses 100% of the power that they can't make great improvements on how they use said power in their future games.

SkylineR2986d ago

After having played MGS4, Uncharted 2 and GoW3 I honestly think Konami needs to find better programers. Personally I think Uncharted 2 and GoW3 blow MGS4 out of the water in terms of visuals, texturing and framerate, so I don't know where Konami has maxed out the PS3.

DigitalAnalog2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

-End statement

N4g_null2986d ago

It's almost as if they where saying it maxed out their excitement or hype for the system. Yet most of you guys would have been band from n4g for saying so back in the day lol. The edge review spoke the truth lol.

I'm starting to think ps gamers are just a certain type of gamer which is similar to people saying super man maxed out his powers.

After reading a few comments it clear you guys don't understand computers completely that's ok. I try my best not to rain on the parade but it's painful. I sort of feel sorry for the fans some times but I think I understand where you guys are coming from a little more. I commend you on supporting this tech and it's only going to make it standard next gen since apus are the way to the future.

This reminds me when epic was rendering using the CPU on the ps2 when most bid cards had trouble because the ps2 was optimized meaning it had crap turned off.

Epic was the worst when it comes to eating all system resources. Standards helped fix this. These ideas can be built into the sdk like not allowing direct poly physics.

N4g_null2986d ago

Why talk about how much power it has left? Shouldn't gamers be talking about what else they want in their games. All of the analogies are circlar logic at best. There is a give and take going on but you guys are not seeing what your giving up thanks to how game play is setup these days.

What I can't understand is why can the ps3 be the only system capable of all of this? Better marketing maybe? Justification of some how? Maybe people just need some thing to believe in after becoming so jaded.

I don't know but it's interesting and has been present in each gen across the board yet for some reason it's exclusive to the ps3 to many ps3 owners.

Seriously I think it comes down to game design. Player see power yet it's just design. Look at the action in gears compared to uncharted. Gears feel so stuck yet uncharted has you roaming more and the character does many thing almost automaticly. The only thing gears does automatically is cover.

On top of this the set pieces are set up to be grand yet if you look around not much is going on. It's some thing you give up.

To better help these developers push your systems you should let them know what you want to see pushed.

Some times it's not laziness it's priority of ideas and features. You have to remixes there are limited resources here. Every thing can not fit.

frostypants2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

"Today, we take a look at how much percentage of the PlayStation 3’s power did some of the well known exclusives utilized."

I'm sorry, but I have no respect for writers who don't care enough to even proof read their work.

And all the author did was base his assertions on what publisher PR reps said. There's nothing of substance here.

Another GamingBolt crap "article". STOP GIVING THESE GUYS HITS.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 2985d ago
pedrami912986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

That's some pure BS right there !

gameseveryday2986d ago

The site is just quoting what the developer said and if you ever played FF13 you gotta agree to my frnd.

Kitase told Japanese mag Dengeki PlayStation 3:

“doesn’t the demo use about 50 percent of its power? Of course, I think the retail version will make use of nearly 100 percent.”

Thats what Kitase told.

Sunny_D2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Wait, you actually think FF13 uses 100% of the PS3's power? You my friend have not seen other games on the PS3. When I think of a PS3 game using 100% power, I would think it would be an EXCLUSIVE. PS3 exclusives have been raising the bar this gen and there is no way a multiplatform game is going to do that when Exclusives don't do it yet.

I will believe them when they release FFVS13 exclusively for the PS3 with little difference between cutscenes and gameplay.

gameseveryday2986d ago


I think you misunderstood what I am saying. FF13 may or may not have used a 100%, I was just quoting what the article said my frnd :)

mrv3212986d ago

Both of you are wrong.

A developer can make Pong use 100% of the PS3's power with ease, just by poor coding, we are effectively debating who can run the slowest... or not answer the most questions and this should not be a messure of a game graphics or developer effort.

If a game looks good and use 10% of the PS3's it's a damn good developer. And that's the bottom line.

gameseveryday2986d ago


Sorry got to disagree my friend. You cannot achieve 100% PS3 power using poor coding. Infact with poor coding the over all engine will be useless and cannot be scaled. I belong to programming back ground that is why I can definitely say that poor programming cannot lead to 100% processing power, be it video games or any other software language.

pixelsword2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Everyone is correct but incorrect, including the developers:

using the power isn't the same as refining the power, which is basically getting the most usage/code ran from/out of the processor per clock cycle.

Similar to what MRV said, a person can use 100 of the "power" just coding on pong, but it's still pong, a waste of the system's power, because it's INEFFICIENT code, not poor code. Similar to what Rashid said, poor code will not be sophisticated enough to run code that will take advantage of the full power of the console at hand. But that doesn't mean that code that does use good coding can take advantage of the power 100% either. The parameters of the game may not need every drop of the power to run effectively, and even if it does need it, even the most refined code KNOWN may not be the most efficient POSSIBLE.

Poor code causes slowdown, and so does inefficient code. Inefficient code will have a higher yield in terms of capability in it's genre or physics, graphics, sound, etc.; which means that yes, great code can be inefficient. Killzone 2 had to load every once in a while in parts, and it was great code: but killzone 3 was more refined, so that great, inefficient code became more efficient, which also means that it freed-up more "power" so that it didn't have to load like that, and since it doesn't need as much "power" to run the level and it improves upon the previous code with power to spare, it can use that power to make the game look even better.

Black OPS and Killzone 2 are a classic example: Black OPS does far less in terms of a lot of things compared to Killzone 2, but they both have shortcomings in terms of little things, except Kllzone 2 has a much higher yield in terms of graphics and abilities.

I was going to type more, but the Lions are losing yet again, and so I need to scream at the television some more.


Okay, the Lions will fail pretty much, so let me just add this:

Poor code: not using everything it could be using and the result could be causing problems.

inefficient code: using everything it can and the result could be causing problems.

efficient code: using everything it can and the result could be causing little to no problems.

nickjkl2986d ago

wait doesnt using 100 percent of a systems resource lead to stalling and lag

and isnt it really hard to use 100 percent of a system resource all the time since it would be pretty hard to get 100 percent going on screen at all times

i think when devs use a percentage they mean that during one of their most strenuous scenes they were using that percentage

and about final fantasy 13 if you ever saw your characters do the level 3 spells at the same time you would be impressed and by level 3 spells i mean

launching the hurricane followed by thundaga and firaga its a rare occurence but its impressive as hell

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2986d ago
Godmars2902986d ago

I doubt vsXIII will properly use a BR disc, why should I expect Square will try to get the most out of the full console?

Whackedorange2986d ago

Not really it depend on how things are coded, you can eastally use the full lot with lousy code somehing Square proved with ff Xiii


The actual size of most PS3 exclusive games are probably around 5-10GB but the rest of the space is just uncompressed audio and in the case of FF13 1080p CGI. MGS4 was a poorly developed game and the controls and gameplay sucked so much that I didn't even play through it a second time (I've played through all the previous titles on every mode even European Extreme)

Kojima said it himself that he was disappointed with the look of MGS4, I seriously hope he does much better with MGS5.

Lazy_Gamer2986d ago

LMAO! Honestly, you're trying too hard my friend.

JoySticksFTW2986d ago

You need to learn how to lie better

You never heard that the best lies have at least a morsel of truth in them?

No one believes you

You're an embarrassment to your troll brethren :(

ULTIMATE_REVENGE2986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

I own and only own a PS3 and I bought MGS4 on launch day. I was hoping the gameplay wouldn't be so slow as that was one of my major concerns for the game and it looks like it was never addressed.

MGS1, 2 & 3 were all great games but MGS4 was such a poor game in terms of quality and gameplay. I was hoping for a new-gen espionage stealth action game experience with a complete overhaul in gameplay mechanics, but it never happened.

The story was great but the graphics and gameplay were a big disappointment.

I'm not trolling, I'm just not being a blind fanboy like YOU!

Genecalypse2986d ago

ultimate revenge is right about MGS4, Kojima did say it didnt live up to his expectations. it blows my mind how you guys are such extremists. being able to critique what you like is much better than blindly standing by it

acky12986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

I absolutely love game this gen so far for me. I don't know how you can't enjoy it if you presumably loved 1, 2 and 3?

I've completed mgs2 almost 10 times and 1 and 3 numerous times also...4 was everything i wanted it to be. Controls were great, great boss fights, incredible story and was everything an mgs game should be! I really don't know what else they could have done to please fans of the series and newcomers too.

Edit: @above
Blindly standing by the critically acclaimed GOTY which received numerous perfect scores? There is no blind allegiance from me, it was a fantastic game!

irepbtown2986d ago


MGS4 was definitely one of the greatest games ever created on this planet (My opinion).

I take you were disappointed (Still dont understand why) and hate the game.

Even Online was brilliant in My opinion.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2986d ago
MGRogue20172986d ago (Edited 2986d ago )

Uncharted 2 will use 100%... Uncharted 3 will use 100%..? Uncharted 4 will use 100%..?

It never ends. :)

presto7172986d ago

ps3 keeps reaching higher and higher forms of super-saiyan-ness to keep up with inter-galactic foes that get stronger and stronger.

Dig_Dug2986d ago

Ha! I love the Dragon Ball analogy. Bubbles man.

Cernunnos2986d ago

What people tend to misunderstand is that there is no way to measure this accurately. How much of the total power they use is up to the game-engine, code optimization etc. The fact that FFXIII use 100% may be true, but that tells us the game is horribly optimized, nothing else.

gameseveryday2986d ago

Obviously there is a way to measure that. A very good example is the task manager in your PC which will show much CPU consumption you are doing :)

So gaming SDK's also have these features where they can accurately measure how much they are pulling off from the hardware.

Gue12986d ago

that's true Rashid Sayed but bad optimizations uses more resource... Why do you think Vista is a resource hog while Win7 is not? And that doesn't mean that Vista is a more powerful OS than Win7 just because is using more of my CPU and RAM.