Quake3World

this thread is just proof that pc's r the best...unless ur a moron...

o'dium wrote:

Grudge wrote:

o'dium wrote: Seconded. (Is that a word lol)

While Oblivions engine is good, its not UE3. Remember UE3 isn't just "Gears", its a much more complex engine that can do so much more than Gears ever threw at it. Not even UT3 will use all the engines features.

Who fucking cares what you can do? What's important is what you actually choose to do in the game, and even more importantly, how you do it.

I believe the quote was "They've got as much of a powerhouse there as Epic have with the unreal engine.". That doesn't even touch on gameplay, sir.

The catch is they don't have the kind of multiplayer flexibility that UE has had throughout. They're limited to singleplayer in a similar manner to the GTA engines (up until the next one, hope hope) but outside of that constraint, they've got a scaleable, extensible engine which lends itself well to licensing and fan-made content. I'm a little mystified as to why they're not pushing it out as a licensable engine, but it might be along the same lines as GTA where if they did, they'd end up with clone products clouding their main title.

I still stand by my original post.

Some of the PS3 shots of Oblivion looked better (aside from it looking washed out). Other than that, the 360 wins in my book.

geoff has a point

To be fair, Armored Core 4 might not be the best game to compare with. Though From Software is a pretty decent company, I wouldn't exactly expect them to tweak their engine enough for two different consoles. I mean look back at the ps2 Armored Core games. Remember how long it took them before they even used the analog sticks?

o'dium wrote:Hey goth boy, I worked in a video game store quite a while ago. Keep up dear.

Dont matter. Youll never shake that. Considering you used it as your backing for every arguement you ever had about games.

"OMGZ I WORK AT GAMEZ I KNOWS EVERA THIN!!!"

scared? wrote:this thread is just proof that pc's r the best...unless ur a moron...

correct

Foo wrote:

o'dium wrote:

Grudge wrote: Who fucking cares what you can do? What's important is what you actually choose to do in the game, and even more importantly, how you do it.

I believe the quote was "They've got as much of a powerhouse there as Epic have with the unreal engine.". That doesn't even touch on gameplay, sir.

The catch is they don't have the kind of multiplayer flexibility that UE has had throughout. They're limited to singleplayer in a similar manner to the GTA engines (up until the next one, hope hope) but outside of that constraint, they've got a scaleable, extensible engine which lends itself well to licensing and fan-made content. I'm a little mystified as to why they're not pushing it out as a licensable engine, but it might be along the same lines as GTA where if they did, they'd end up with clone products clouding their main title.

I still stand by my original post.

well, as for MP, you know the 'GTA engine' (read: Renderware) is also used for Burnout and the like, yea?

Foo wrote:

o'dium wrote:

Grudge wrote: Who fucking cares what you can do? What's important is what you actually choose to do in the game, and even more importantly, how you do it.

I believe the quote was "They've got as much of a powerhouse there as Epic have with the unreal engine.". That doesn't even touch on gameplay, sir.

The catch is they don't have the kind of multiplayer flexibility that UE has had throughout. They're limited to singleplayer in a similar manner to the GTA engines (up until the next one, hope hope) but outside of that constraint, they've got a scaleable, extensible engine which lends itself well to licensing and fan-made content. I'm a little mystified as to why they're not pushing it out as a licensable engine, but it might be along the same lines as GTA where if they did, they'd end up with clone products clouding their main title.

I still stand by my original post.

The tech behind Oblivion is (was) the Net Immerse engine (it's renamed/rebranded 'gameBryo'; now I think), it's licenced so Bethesda didn't actually write so they can't actually licence it out in the way you suggest... it's also why there aren't really any full on mods for Oblivion either becasue the inclusion of Havok physics messed that up becasue that portion of the engine wasn't licenced with that in mind (which is why the community has to 'hack' content into Oblivion).

Most of the games being built on GameBryo have a lot of terrain in them which is one of the strengths of that engine and whilst UE3 isn't really known for that kind of thing there are a couple of MMO's apparently being built on so Epic are at least addressing that 'issue'.

Last 2 posts show how little I know

That definitely explains the lack of licensing better for each

rgoer wrote:as somebody who has worked with both pieces of hardware in a development environment, I have to say that the PS3 is a fucking dog... it is just weak as shit and that's a fact

with an identical scene (with identical assets) you have to bend over backwards and kiss your own asshole to get half the fillrate from the PS3 that you get on the 360

So the "awesome" Cell processor really doesn't mean shit when the graphics processing power they've implemented is weak.

Is that, in basic terms, what seems to be Sony's problem?

i think they had some in house graphics solution that turned out to be shit so they ran to nvidia at the last minute. all nvidia could offer at the time was a generation behind the 360 gpu.

It's more or less a 7900GTX, right? But there is a different API (as in not Direct3D), which is a bitch to code for, and the Cell is even worse (from what I have heard) Plus it's only 256MB RAM, which (in practice) means no AA at HD resolutions.

Grudge wrote:It's more or less a 7900GTX, right? But there is a different API (as in not Direct3D), which is a bitch to code for, and the Cell is even worse (from what I have heard) Plus it's only 256MB RAM, which (in practice) means no AA at HD resolutions.

I thought they were matched for RAM, this is news to me.

Indeed, all of what you're saying may be true and I still wouldn't have trouble believing that seriously dedicated motivated game developers could squeeze the shit out of what's there to produce some purty games. Wasn't the PS2 suppose to be more difficult to develop for than the Xbox?

Of course they could, but is it worth the effort? Remember that the PS2 has a gazillion units out there, and the PS3 is outsold by both the Wii and the 360 (worldwide).

Oh, and the 360 has a unified memory system with 512MB, plus 10MB embedded ram on the GPU, which gives it "free" 4X AA at 720p and 2X AA at 1080p

The PS3 has 256MB Rambus RAM for the Cell and 256MB standard GDDR3 RAM for the GPU

Grudge wrote:It's more or less a 7900GTX, right? But there is a different API (as in not Direct3D), which is a bitch to code for, and the Cell is even worse (from what I have heard) Plus it's only 256MB RAM, which (in practice) means no AA at HD resolutions.

7800 rsx chip if i remember correctly.

Yes, that much is obvious Grudge, I was merely speaking hypothetically.

I think it's on an 90nm die which would make it a 7900, since the 7800 is on 130nm

EDIT: 90 not 80

Massive Quasars wrote:Yes, that much is obvious Grudge, I was merely speaking hypothetically.

Well sure, in that case yeah. But in the end, when it comes to having games that "look good", a powerful GPU is more important, no matter how much potential the CPU (in this case the Cell) has.