PS3 version uses Texture Detail 1; World Detail 2

[XEDR]

Err... ever thought that the PS3 could have a totally separate, non-comparable config vs the PC that highlights its strengths and doesn't make its bottlenecks kill performance?

Tex 1 World 2 should look much crappier than what I've seen from screenshots. World 2 probably doesn't even have enhanced per-pixel lighting, while the PS3 does that.

What's probably off is lower texture details, but effects and co. are still on because at heart the RSX although sucky is still comparable to a Geforce 7800/7900. And that's not even considering the optimization.

[WanderlustX2]

Well Tim Sweeney's comments are very saddening considering I consider Unreal/UT one of the best franchises of FPS on the PC. It shows where his and the companies future lies and providing PC gamers a shadow of what we use to have in terms of configuration.

[Trepænima]

Well NZ is too bad. One can build a PC out of newegg.com for the price of a PS3 that'll max out UT3 on any 21".

And yes it's too bad that UE4 and (if they decide to make it) UT4 will be console first. To me and a lot of competitive players it means competitive UT is truly dead on the PC. So much for bread and butter.

[MTL]

keyboard cowboy

ahahahahaha oh man i luv that name!

[Shaggy.gpd]

And yes it's too bad that UE4 and (if they decide to make it) UT4 will be console first.

It is even worse that all threats which talk about that (UE4 for consoles), are removed systematicaly.

[Phopojijo]

You at least know you will get a good few years out of a console, with developers continually juicing more and more out of the system. Neither the PS3 or 360 are anywhere near their limits, the PS2 has only relatively recently nearly reached its ceiling.

While I agree you do pay extra for titles (it's only roughly $10-$20 here as well which is odd), in the long run you do get your moneys worth a few times over. Sure they will lag behind in visuals after awhile but at least you know the games will run sweet and are optimized as opposed to having to upgrade every release round as I feel I have to on PC. Even with a really good system there are no guarantees that a game will run well or at all thanks to the multitude of hardware configurations. Quite often you will be playing newer games uglier then your older games until you upgrade to newer tech that they're using.

At the end of the day though we all have different tastes, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, I simply don't see it the same way as you.

You're right, you're getting a better dollar-to-enjoyment factor off a console.

The problem is my post was made to point out 2 key points -- which your reply completely ignored.

1) We're in an accelerating market who is hellbent on pushing the boundaries. We're soon reaching the point where we can fill up all the detail we need and the advancements in graphics will be incremental at best per generation.

and more importantly

2) When a monopoly kicks in -- prices will inflate substantially higher than they are now.

I actually sort-of wish that consoles merge into the PC architecture.

Segregated companies benefit best from competing within a standard. If the standard is defined and well-regulated yet free to develop in (See: Windows).

A media center PC running some future version of Windows would have no problem running split-screen videogames with controllers. Likewise they can accept a mouse'n'keyboard and function like a regular PC. Likewise you can pop the disk out and play it at your desktop like a PC gamer.

It may be just a pipe-dream that all the companies will quit *****ing and hug... but it's definitely a pipe-dream that satisfies all viewpoints.

Unlike having 3 platforms with dedicated hardware and fees to license software on each {with larger fees the fewer platforms survive}

You can easily sell a Media Center PC in Walmart instead of consoles... which is something I think we should definitely switch towards.

[D-Hunter]

Is there distortion? World detail 2 turns that off, and even the GameCube had tons of games with realistic distortion and decent water.

[Grinchy]

Err... ever thought that the PS3 could have a totally separate, non-comparable config vs the PC that highlights its strengths and doesn't make its bottlenecks kill performance?

Tex 1 World 2 should look much crappier than what I've seen from screenshots. World 2 probably doesn't even have enhanced per-pixel lighting, while the PS3 does that.

What's probably off is lower texture details, but effects and co. are still on because at heart the RSX although sucky is still comparable to a Geforce 7800/7900. And that's not even considering the optimization.

This thread is doing fine without you bringing actual logic into it.

[Xyx]

As for the "why release a game etc...", ask Epic and many other developers, and then ask them about deadlines and finance.

Do the words "when it's done" ring any particular bells for you? Spoken not once but repeated over and over. Note that the words were "when it's done" and not "when it's almost done", "when we think we can patch the bugs that remain" or "when our publisher tells us to ship".

In the booklet shipping with the Collector's Edition, Epic claims that since Gears made them tons of money they now have the luxury position of shipping games when they're done. I'm not aware of Epic's handling of other games since Gears, but in my book, for UT3, that statement is a demonstrable lie. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone that followed the beta/demo process and agrees the game was indeed "done" when it shipped.

[Uzi Downes]

That was in reply to someone trying to make out that bugs in the PS3 version were features, then going on to ask why would Epic leave them in if they weren't. Certainly not the in way you've read or used it.

If you think I'm okay with the state of some of the things that the game shipped with you'd be mistaken, I won't go moaning about it but I'm certainly not impressed with some very obvious oversights.

He asked for a reason and got told to go ask Epic and other developers about finances and deadlines. If you can offer another realistic reason, by all means put it fourth.

[MonsOlympus]

Wow no **** hey, need to read this whole thread see what the general concensus is. If this is true though ummz my PC kicks the **** outta the PS3 and its not even that new

[Xyx]

That was in reply to someone trying to make out that bugs in the PS3 version were features, then going on to ask why would Epic leave them in if they weren't. Certainly not the in way you've read or used it.

Even out of context, a statement should generally hold up.

He asked for a reason and got told to go ask Epic and other developers about finances and deadlines. If you can offer another realistic reason, by all means put it fourth.

I wish I could... but the state in which the game was released despite the endless "when it's done" reassurance continues to baffle me. I'm not nearly surprised by the fact that "a game" was released before it was "done" (happens all the time for the reasons you mentioned), just that "a game" was released before it was "done" by a company that repeatedly promised to release "when it's done".

Then again, I saw the same thing happen to Neverwinter Nights... Its developers also liberally applied the phrase "when it's done", but it took two years of patching to get it to even "barely done".

Maybe I'm just picky. I have tons of my own projects sitting in beta forever because I cannot honestly bring myself to proclaim them "done".

[Uzi Downes]

Wow no **** hey, need to read this whole thread see what the general concensus is. If this is true though ummz my PC kicks the **** outta the PS3 and its not even that new

If you were to take UE3 as a good indication of the PS3, which most of its users wouldn't.

UT3 would be the best UE3 game on the console, but definitely not up their in terms of the consoles exclusives. It does pretty well, but most games using the engine don't fair so well.

[Uzi Downes]

I wish I could... but the state in which the game was released despite the endless "when it's done" reassurance continues to baffle me. I'm not nearly surprised by the fact that "a game" was released before it was "done" (happens all the time for the reasons you mentioned), just that "a game" was released before it was "done" by a company that repeatedly promised to release "when it's done".

Then again, I saw the same thing happen to Neverwinter Nights... Its developers also liberally applied the phrase "when it's done", but it took two years of patching to get it to even "barely done".

Maybe I'm just picky. I have tons of my own projects sitting in beta forever because I cannot honestly bring myself to proclaim them "done".

I actually agree with you (apart from the first part I haven't included ), it's a worrying trend. But then again it does catch up with companies. You have outfits like id who took the engine licensing route and used their franchises as tech demos, they are now having to release free games in an effort to regain some type of user base again before their next commercial release.

Hopefully Epic make good with a few patches.

[MonsOlympus]

If you were to take UE3 as a good indication of the PS3, which most of its users wouldn't.

UT3 would be the best UE3 game on the console, but definitely not up their in terms of the consoles exclusives. It does pretty well, but most games using the engine don't fair so well.

No wai, it cant be all on the software

That said though, you do have a point but platform exclusivity has nothing to do with how well a game performs on a given platform. I'll agree Epic's UE3 games are certainly up there in terms of looks vs performance, Im just surprised that the PS3 is set so low especially in regards to textures.

Im guessing that texture optimizations would be the heart of making games on lower end systems because you have to be careful with memory. It makes sense to me that these low-mid end systems wouldnt be able to match a 1gb GPU along with a system having 2gb or more of ram ontop of that.

Sometimes though low-mid end systems can have alot in terms of processing power so some companies choose to utilize it more rather than putting the load on the graphics.

Im not sure what context you are using best there for but I assumed graphics since this is what the thread is about. Graphics being tied to art direction in some sense does make it difficult to judge one vs the other, its like saying the original psycho vs transformers vs sincity, which one is best? Well I wouldnt say any one specifically and it has little to do with the medium they chose to distribute in. Infact I would go so far to say different mediums inspire people to take things a step further, I would much rather see a film like sincity as it has character just like what film grain can do for a movie like psycho.

Watching masters of scifi there was an interesting episode about a genetically engineer humanoid worker who gain rights to be called a person. At the end it says that humans are defined by their imperfections, I would go so far to say the same about the world around us.

I do know though that exclusive titles on platforms lead to them becoming more successful than others, especially when you factor in costs, it doesnt have much to do with whats best. Really artists should be able to use any medium available to them to get their feelings/point whatever across to people, I know if I had something I wanted people to see then I would put it where the most amount of people could see it and appreciate it. Not because it generates more revenue, I wonder if developers ever factor than in when they are reading gamasutra articles about why games should be considered an art form.