Carmack: Rage PS3 Lagging Behind Xbox 360, PC

[ryokinshin]

So? it comes, and again we get Rage 60fps, high quality settings. Your argument still sucks. I'm saving a ton of money, $10 more for a game is not much. All first party online games on PS3 are dedicated server hosted and free.

No upgrades for years+high quality settings = win. and there are still years to go considering these systems aren't maxed out.

 

[shrex]

PS3 version is lagging behind at only 20 to 30 FPS. They still have not achieved 60fps.

Its a myth that you have to spend lots of money on pc hardware, and you dont need to constantly upgrade

 

[ryokinshin]

Again,when games don't look good as Crysis runs smooth, I don't see how tha tis a good argument. They said 60fps on all consoles and in GI mag, he is quoted by saying PS3 gives them more headroom in total power. You want to argue about justifying you costs, go ahead. No BD movies? Devs paying more attention to consoles? I like how the industry works.

If you want to argue 360, that is even worse. 299 hardware running all this from 05. Good job.

 

[vengefulwish]

@shrex
dude stfu, u know nothing. It's a myth that you have to spend lot of money? LMFAOOO, its not a myth, its a fact.
and so what if we wait years for crysis? no one plays that game, no one cares about getting 60fps on that game, we have something called EXCLUSIVE.. yeah, stfu.

 

[ryokinshin]

http/www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/10671-crysis-warhead-hardware-performance-review-5.html

These benchmarks are a myth. You say it only costs a lot to run games on the really high settings, and lower= easy to run. So what is the point of buying a PC when there is much more a console offers and you can buy the computer you want, vs something you have to get just to play games?
Argument fail.

I care.....lmao. We get Crysis 2 the same time as PC.....so figure.

 

[kiniku]

All I can say John, Mr. PC programmer, is look at the exclusives. They speak for themselves.

I hope there are more because joint development shackles the PS3's game quality. Sadly, since most titles get joint releases the PS3 version has to look the same. (We don't want to piss off the 360 fanbase).

 

[ryokinshin]

The difference in programming makes it different, not really hard. Pretty much everyone has gotten around it, sometimes it's give and take like if ti's harder for them to dish out 22 or full res on PS3, they go for more detail which is easier. Cryengine 3 actually looking better on PS3, too bad that video is not the best quality.

 

[99lawrence]

All I know is Naughty Dog are putting out the pudding.

 

[ryokinshin]

Yea, Killzone 2 is still top dog today.

 

[Guest]

my my my the ps3 and 360 are just about the same for power. the biggest diffrance is the 360 has a back buffer of sorts can add 4*aa to games with not as much of a perfomance hit.
At the end of the day if your a fan boy you wont agree. i own a pc 360 ps3 they have there strengths and weakness but i enjoy all 3.

 

[ryokinshin]

@Red_Imp
PS3 better when it comes to heavy physics and particles.
Xbox 360 better at shader heavy.

Not a capability difference, it's a performance difference.

 

[ryokinshin]

damn double posts. PS3 can pull aa from Cell, which is the reason for the lack of in older games where devs couldn't pull all from RSX.

 

[deltatux]

If Sony placed two PPEs instead of 1 and lower the SPE count to five or something, then the PS3 would be better positioned. The more cores you have doesn't necessarily mean better. Look at the current gaming market. People don't really need quad core for gaming. Most games can't use all four of those cores on the PC platform. The theory holds true for the consoles as well.

Either that or follow Microsoft's lead by going for a more powerful GPU than CPU as games now-a-days are more GPU-dependent than CPU-dependent.

If Sony went ATi then they might have access to a DX10-like GPU like what Microsoft got for the XBOX 360 (not a DX10 chip but architecturally similar). Microsoft chose a better GPU than CPU while Sony chose a strong CPU than a strong GPU. I think that's the problem here.

 

[tipoo]

60 Hertz game? You mean 60 frames per second? The console has nothing to do with what refresh rate its displayed at. If i connect my 360 to a 120Hz tv, it will display at 120hz.

 

[largeprint48]

Ok wow ryokinshin you dumb ass
Name one way 360 or ps3 is better than pc (price isn’t better just means you’re a cheap ass but I only spend around $550 for my pc). One could also spend less than this if one wanted console graphics all one would to do is turn the resolution down to 1280x1024(halo 3 640x578) then lower most everything on medium (some higher some lower) turn off aa and af (some games have 2x on). Oh and your say you don’t have a pc now and if you do have one take the price out of what a base comuter cost then you have your price for your gaming pc.

 

[gamerk316]

1) The PS3 uses OpenGL, not DirectX...So stop balming DX10 support as a factor please.

2) If you have a 120Hz LCD running a 60FPS game, then each frame is displayed twice. The game will not go to 120FPS simply because you have a 120Hz TV.

 

[largeprint48]

this game is useing opengl

 

[shrex]

CryEngine 3 equal to CryEngine 2 'medium' settings, comparison video reveals

http/www.joystiq.com/2009/06/16/cryengine-3-equal-to-cryengine-2-medium-settings-reveals-comp/

 

[Torment]

I worked with a guy who did graphics optimizations for Sony on the PS3 early on. Even within Sony, they were very territorial about who got what information. As a result, his group had to figure a lot out for themselves. I can only imagine how bad it's been for 3rd party developers.

 

[JeanLuc]

[citation][nom]Torment[/nom]I worked with a guy who did graphics optimizations for Sony on the PS3 early on. Even within Sony, they were very territorial about who got what information. As a result, his group had to figure a lot out for themselves. I can only imagine how bad it's been for 3rd party developers.[/citation]

Bad, even Valve have given up the ghost and dropped the PS3 altogether.