Final Fantasy 13 to Use "Nearly 100%" of PS3

[cielmerlion]

I want it for the PC dammit!

 

[tipoo]

Ugh, i hate it when a developer tries to spew out a percentage of "power" they are using. Does he mean 100% of the GPU? Or maybe the Cell? Maybe he just means all the RAM is filled?

 

[cl_spdhax1]

maybe it just meant 100% of space used on the blu-ray disc. duh, "Doesn't the demo use about 50 percent"..

 

[tenor77]

[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]Again, RAM isn't the issue, as a result of the 256-bit bus avaliable.Besides, Windows cheats by installing everything to a HD, and then loading into RAM, and usually not deleateing a value after it is used (to save time later). The PS3, on the other hand, will load the majority of data off the disk only as needed, and clean up after itself when data is no longer needed. [/citation]

Object management is crucial to the process. I will agree that having a HD and large amounts of RAM can lead to "sloppy" programming, however constantly using the GC or loading in objects and not being to allocate resources prior to neededing them is not ideal either. Given the choice I'd rather program for the PC any day.

As for 100% of the PS3 being used is an ignorant statement. I could bring the PS3 to its knees with a particle simulation, but that would be due to poor programming not a limitation of the hardware.

 

[cracklint]

I highly doubt the cut scenes aren't pre-rendered. If they were done in game, then games such as MGS4 wouldn't have filled the capacity of the blu-ray. Say what you will, but the gameplay looked no where as good as the video in MGS4

 

[utgardaloki]

PS2 had 32 MB of unified memory. Thats it. It had no video-RAM. The GPU did how ever have 4 MB of cash memory which was used as a frame and Z-buffer as well as a rendering cash (the main memory bus was too slow for these tasks). Textures were still stored in main RAM.

And the PS3 suffers from too little memory even though it is a console. Crysis can sertainly be done on the PS3. Just not nearly as well graphics wise compared to a good PC.

And for the record, the PS2 had a 300 something MHz main CPU. Its all about how you use the hardware, not how good that hardware is.

I totally agree. Now I've been trying to pull of a Crysis mod on the N64 with that very logic in mind. But I guess I'm not a very good programmer. It runs like shit. I have a scene with 7 million vertices per frame where every such frame contains a measly 250 MBs of raw texture data and all I get is 1 darn frame per f***ing minute. Can anybody help me out here? What am I doing wrong? I mean it's obviously not about the hardware...

I'm sorry but I couldn't resist It wasn't meant as a pun but that statement of yours plain simply isn't right yet statements like that are all over the place. I guess Nintendo is winning their non-power PR crusade.

 

[neodude007]

They want a pat on the back for making a game the right way? Jesus its not like the PS3 hardware has changed for... uhh YEARS

 

[Dave K]

If the game is multiplatform then it will not be using a LOT of the PS3's capabilities. The only games that have the potential to do that will be very specific to the platform and it's particular hardware quirks - multiplatform would be out of the question.

 

[dark_lord69]

This game is a big reason I have a next gen console at all.
I have a PS3 and Wii.

 

[bustapr]

Why do people still call the ps3 a next gen console. It's already been out for 2-3 years. plus the ps3 cannot be next-gen anymore since pc gaming has also evolved and is throwing better framerates and resolutions. If you could have ability to exchange fps from a pc for better graphics pc gaming would be next-gen.

Now, talking about ff13. I dont believe the ff13 will push the ps3 to its limits since the game in real time has dumb floor textures and bad looking combat. For those people that think the cutscenes are real time, THEY ARE WRONG! They are cg. If they mean push the ps3, I would guess that they are talking about filling up the blue ray disc, which is not pushing the ps3 to its limits.

 

[CptTripps]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]Then what does it matter that he was off by a few GB?[/citation]

Being off by more than 50% (4 vs. 8.5) is a tad different than saying a dual layer DVD is 9GB.

The first statement was fanboy BS stating false information. The second was a correction that was off by a mere 5%.

That, is why it matters.

 

[Dave K]

Yea they're not really next gen anymore. I've got both the 360 and PS3 but since upgrading to a new PC late last year I've only bought maybe 2 games for consoles (a bunch for the PC). My biggest problem with consoles is that it seems that all the "Big Titles" are shooters... and you've got to have a hole in your head to play shooters on consoles if you have a fast PC.

Where consoles still get my money is in platformers (where the controller works really well) and racing games (GT5P and Forza2 both crush any of the PC racers at image quality and game design... not realism though... YET), but it seems that developers are falling all over themselves to design shooters that are crippled by the crappy control scheme (I know I know... it's because a LOT of people play console shooters for some odd reason... probably because they've never played a PC Shooter).

 

[CptTripps]

I play shooters on my PC and my 360. It all depends where your friends are at. A hole in the head is not required to have fun with your friends who can buy a $2-300 console but not a $1000+ computer.

Games that reuire a PC for me are MMO and RTS. Don't get me wrong, I love KB\M and my PC, but my friends are a poor bunch.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]utgardaloki[/nom]PS2 had 32 MB of unified memory. Thats it. It had no video-RAM. The GPU did how ever have 4 MB of cash memory which was used as a frame and Z-buffer as well as a rendering cash (the main memory bus was too slow for these tasks). [/citation]

I tried taking the cash in my old PS2 to the bank and they laughed at me. Surely, you agree that there is at least 4 million in CASH in my PS2. Its the new slim kind but sony said it was better than the original. Anyway, will you give me a cut of that if I send it to you?

 

[option350z]

[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]Why do people still call the ps3 a next gen console. It's already been out for 2-3 years. plus the ps3 cannot be next-gen anymore since pc gaming has also evolved and is throwing better framerates and resolutions. If you could have ability to exchange fps from a pc for better graphics pc gaming would be next-gen. Now, talking about ff13. I dont believe the ff13 will push the ps3 to its limits since the game in real time has dumb floor textures and bad looking combat. For those people that think the cutscenes are real time, THEY ARE WRONG! They are cg. If they mean push the ps3, I would guess that they are talking about filling up the blue ray disc, which is not pushing the ps3 to its limits.[/citation]

I second that notion. The fact that I see is that the ps3 and 360 were never originally next gen. The hardware incorporated in to both consoles were indeed dated and even though it fit the uses of both manufacturers, PC will always be top dog. Sony might claim the processor has impressive parallel processing power but when compared to Larrabee, it falls short. I have heard of people say a ps3 is more powerful than a PC. They are sadly mistaken.

 

[Silluete]

[citation][nom]cielmerlion[/nom]I want it for the PC dammit![/citation]
+1 to that.

 

[palladin9479]

Umm ... who ever mentioned textures / audio taking up most of the "space" on a disk is plain wrong. CGI and FMV have always taken up most of the space on a disk, regardless of the platform. Index's monster data, map data, world data, dialogue scripts, quest flags, all that takes up less then 1 GB of total space because its all basically text. Sound also doesn't take up much anymore, we're talking a one to two GB at most, and that is assuming EVERY sound clip and music score is uncompressed (I'm willing to bet money that the sound clips will be compressed). Texture data is large, but still only a few GB at most (assuming max texture size on a PS3 and them not reusing / reskinning large amounts of textures). FMV / CGI take up multiple GB's on the PS2 (reason for changing disks so much), on the PS3 if they use HD resolution videos, then its going to be 25GB+ for 2hrs. Seeing as FFXIII will have more then 2hrs of CGI, they might lower the resolution to 1080i or 720p to fit more video time, depending.

 

[utgardaloki]

I tried taking the cash in my old PS2 to the bank and they laughed at me..

That's probably because they thought you're really cute. You see regardless of what Sony says that cash isn't readily available.

 

[Guest]

Consoles have a larger bus because it makes them cheaper and they do not need to store much in RAM.

With less RAM they cut costs. With less RAM you can't leave things sit in memory and since you can't leave things in memory you must be able to shove it into RAM FAST. This results in a larger bus.

The other reason for less RAM is you need far less for running a single app and a stripped down OS than the plethora of apps and heavy monolithic OS a standard computer must run.

 

[squatchman]

Frak... RAM is cheap and PS3 isn't setting any memory bandwidth records. See the first part of my previous message for the rest.