Why Not Develop on The PS3?

[Bigdmo9999]

Quote: Originally Posted by ak1knight

So... what was the advantage? If they still had to make the game fit on a DVD than they obviously couldn't fill a bluray disk, let alone use the PS3 to it's "full potential".

I'm pretty sure it would still be a good game, its hard to really say. But when you start out with the ability to not worry about space, and then in the end worry about shrinking stuff down, I'm pretty sure the game does better. Not to mention you can use some elements that would need to start out on the PS3 first.

I'm not a programmer so I'm just talking out of my *** but I'm still pretty sure it would be a better game.

[mrprice33]

i'll piggyback what others have said. basically, it doesn't make any sense for ps3 to be the lead sku for a couple of reasons...1). in a lot of cases, the games would be worse. developing for the 360 is basically like developing for the pc, which everyone knows is by far the easiest platform to dev on. so, more difficult=more people which =more money on the project for the same result. since a lot of companies don't want to spend more money, you get an inferior product.

2. devs ALWAYS port from the lead console to others. remember last gen? nearly everything was ported from the ps2 to the xbox, even though the xbox was the more powerful system by a wide margin.

also, to the posters who talk about disc space. it's not a problem, at least not in the way system ram is. system ram is the #1 problem facing devs as they try to pack more complex ai, art, etc into games.

i think also people need to realize something when it comes to the show. although it is a magnificent game, baseball is BY FAR the easiest sport to replicate in a videogame. first, you basically only have to showcase one player model at a time (the batter or the pitcher) due to camera angles. secondly, the bulk of the gameplay is a physics demonstration. ball+bat+wind=the result of any given "play" in the game. there is also fielder ai, but that's about it. madden has to calculate 22 different, very complex assignments at all times, in addition to physics, wind, etc. when you really boil it down, football is a much more difficult sport to create a game for.

[Solidice]

Quote: Originally Posted by Common

I honestly don't believe 1 gig of ram is necessary for an epic game. The PS3 and 360 have produced epic games, PS3 more so, but that's just my opinion. I'm not a tech expert or anything close, but from what I've seen, the Ps3 is the more capable system. Someone just needs to try developing on it.

well technically, hardware wise, the 360 is better at graphics. pretty much all the benchmarks test showed that, but hardware is not king. you still need software and the people to create the games.

and more RAM would defiantly be huge for developers for console gaming, they would be able to have more things loaded on-screen and likely be able to push graphics even better.

typically first-party title would be better looking because of proper optimization. multi-platform games have to cater to both systems and likely don't get good optimization for either system.

for an example, I've actually played Oblivion on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC. the PC version looked the best by far. it wasn't even close. but then again my PC has 4GB RAM and I could max out all the graphic options(note that the 360 graphics card is better than the one in my PC). i would probably place the 360 2nd, but the difference between the 360 and PS3 wasn't much if any really. the 360 one ran smoother because it is installed on my hard drive.

[mrprice33]

eventually the ps3 will show its graphical superiority as devs continue to learn about the cell processor. to people who talk like it's no big deal, pretend you were a writer. you've been writing in english your whole life, but suddenly your publisher came to you and said "your next book is in spanish, and we're going to translate it to english." how would that affect you?

[ak1knight]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrprice33

eventually the ps3 will show its graphical superiority

Hopefully by the time the next gen of consoles come out

[mrprice33]

sony's comitted to the ps3 as a 10 year life cycle system. every dev that uses it says that it's plenty powerful (moreso than the 360), but that it takes a long time to get used to the cell and the architecture of the system. when you look at the games that really look beautiful, and you look at how long it took to make them (killzone 2, anyone), you'll see that what i'm saying is correct. this, however, should not become a system bash thread.

[ak1knight]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrprice33

sony's comitted to the ps3 as a 10 year life cycle system. every dev that uses it says that it's plenty powerful (moreso than the 360), but that it takes a long time to get used to the cell and the architecture of the system. when you look at the games that really look beautiful, and you look at how long it took to make them (killzone 2, anyone), you'll see that what i'm saying is correct. this, however, should not become a system bash thread.

Not trying to bash, just saying. But how can sony think comitting to a 10 year life cycle for a CONSOLE be a good idea when MS is probably cooking up a top of the line system that will be released in 2 or 3 years that has bluray, more RAM and a better graphics card?

[mrprice33]

this is a discussion better served for another thread, before we completely threadjack. i would be very surprised if there was another 360 in 2 or 3 years, though. the economy being what it is, i can see people staying pat if there aren't any advancements in the mechanics of playing the game.