Squee Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 But it's...Sega... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyrex Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 But it's...Sega... Yeah, and unfortunately SEGA has gone way downhill since the Dreamcast days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest theSun Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 further evidence that the ps3 is a useless POS not to be bought or used by anyone ever. i'm still pissed about 2 ps1s and 2 ps2s dying on me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 But it's...Sega... Yeah, and unfortunately SEGA has gone way downhill since the Dreamcast days... Well, to be fair Condemned was a great game. It freaked me out like in the good old Silent Hill-days. ...and supposedly Mad World was a great Wii-game as well. But apart from those two games I can't really think of any good Sega games from the last 6-7 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAXIMUS MISCHIEF Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 the real reason most games actually look worse on the ps3 is because although the ps3 has more power, it for some reason is not able to use most of that power because a lot of it is being spent on other things like running the main interface thing. i dont remember where i hear this but it was some game developer dude and they have come on forums a bunch of times to say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ego Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 No not true. The developers aren't used to depending on a complex CPU structure to do a lot of the work. Here's an interview with Gabe Newell hating the PS3. Also, he seems SUPER depressed in this video so it's worth the watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR8CVLVmKQs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyrex Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 But it's...Sega... Yeah, and unfortunately SEGA has gone way downhill since the Dreamcast days... Well, to be fair Condemned was a great game. It freaked me out like in the good old Silent Hill-days. ...and supposedly Mad World was a great Wii-game as well. But apart from those two games I can't really think of any good Sega games from the last 6-7 years? Both Condemned and Madworld were well-received, but you're right - SEGA hasn't put out a AAA title in some time... the real reason most games actually look worse on the ps3 is because although the ps3 has more power, it for some reason is not able to use most of that power because a lot of it is being spent on other things like running the main interface thing. i dont remember where i hear this but it was some game developer dude and they have come on forums a bunch of times to say that. No - do you honestly think that a good chunk of the PS3's power would go to run the XMB (Xross Media Bar), which is becoming standard on all Sony electronics these days? The biggest different I understand is the PS3 Cell Processor has individual core CPUs called SPUs that can be tasked with various game-related functions and effects - most developers are used to writing their own routines to handle such things, or relying on the video card's GPU to manage such tasks. Since it's a different (and more complicated) architecture, developers used to doing things their own way or a certain way are going to have a harder time getting their heads around how to properly utilize the PS3's capacity. Developers like Insomniac, Naughty Dog, Guerilla, etc. have all invested the time and money in learning their way around the hardware, whereas SEGA and, early on, EA, tried to force their ported 360 code to run on the PS3, which yielded less than desirable results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyrex Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 No not true. The developers aren't used to depending on a complex CPU structure to do a lot of the work. Here's an interview with Gabe Newell hating the PS3. Also, he seems SUPER depressed in this video so it's worth the watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR8CVLVmKQs That video is oddly edited - in a lot of parts, he starts to say something, and they cut to another part of the interview. He also seems like a whiny bitch that doesn't enjoy his job. As for 'hating on the PS3', I heard him whining about the 360 and MS just as much... he just seems really unhappy he didn't create World of Warcraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ego Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Yeah, somebody should make a satire of it. Gabe Newell, depressed because World of Warcraft has more paying customers than Steam. Raging on about everyone in the industry. But other notable names have complained about the PS3's architecture. John Carmack for example. I'm not saying they are right. I'm saying they mostly seem to hate it. I know a guy that programmed on a multi-platform game and he hated both, but PS3 a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyrex Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share Posted September 2, 2009 Oh, I could totally see from a developer's standpoint how a more complicated architecture could be a pain in the ass to work with... I deal with that on a daily basis with trying to learn new code, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 uh no, let me clear it up for you. in the end, it is the ps3 and its users that pay the consequences, not the developers. got it? No, developers pay the consequences too, when up to 50% or more of a games' revenue comes from the PS3 version - that's just plain stupid to release an inferior version. But most will buy it anyway, inferior or not. so they lose close to nothing. How much do they lose for pushing back the date of release huh? I have no idea but usually launch day is carefully planned. How much more hours do they have to invest to program "properly" for ps3? this also translates to money. so take all this into account I'd say they're better off releasing inferior versions. it's simple (and obvious) really, if it were better for them to do it right then they would just do it and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyrex Posted September 3, 2009 Author Share Posted September 3, 2009 uh no, let me clear it up for you. in the end, it is the ps3 and its users that pay the consequences, not the developers. got it? No, developers pay the consequences too, when up to 50% or more of a games' revenue comes from the PS3 version - that's just plain stupid to release an inferior version. But most will buy it anyway, inferior or not. so they lose close to nothing. How much do they lose for pushing back the date of release huh? I have no idea but usually launch day is carefully planned. How much more hours do they have to invest to program "properly" for ps3? this also translates to money. so take all this into account I'd say they're better off releasing inferior versions. it's simple (and obvious) really, if it were better for them to do it right then they would just do it and we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason a game gets released with shoddy code is usually due to the marketing dept. pushing for the game's release window, and the developers having no choice to but let it go (also bonuses probably also factor into this, as a lot of the game industry's bonus structure is based on meeting deadlines or meeting sales figures). Also, this is the exception, not the norm - most games are just fine, and don't have shoddy programming (360 or PS3), but for a "big" title like this, it gets more attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.