It is damn impressive indeed considering everything everything is in real time and to think of how the gameplay would work seamlessly between cutscene just like the previous series just boggles my mind! Sure there's no gameplay footage, but knowing Kojima and his work with the series, there's is no doubt that it will look just as good as those cut scene. After all, don't they use the actual gameplay graphics to use as the cutscene in the previous series, but with some special effect like blurs and scaling thrown in? Check out what the X-Box fanboy is saying...its pretty funny. A hi-res version should be even better whenever that comes out... http://forum.teamxbox.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12 -Some don't believe its real time and that its cgi.
Sounds about right. Let's put it this way: MGS4 graphics won't go from those cutscene graphics to some high-res PC-esque game during gameplay. If it wasn't Kojima, I might doubt these graphics, but he's a special case. I bow down to him. BTW, as long as you don't mind, it might be better to discuss the MGS4 stuff in the TGS thread I made. I made that thread so people wouldn't miss anything TGS-related in here, thinking it was just Rokkit and I debating some more. If I happen to find a direct-feed version of the trailer, I'll probably end up posting it in that thread as well.
Pretty impressive stuff that MGS4 video. I think its interesting that with the upgrade in graphics games will start to look very similar to one another. It will come down to story lines and characters that will seperate top class games from the rest of the field. I also think with the upgrade in graphics people will be looking for MANY more in game options and realistic options. Things like instead of having a counter of the screen showing how many bullets you have left in a game, you can open the clip and look for yourself. Maybhe that where a normal hand controller and a keyboard counld be used in unison. The controller giving you your basic combat movements and the keyboard giving you many other options. It would be REALLY cool if they came out with a keyboard that used those keys that can change the displayed graphic on the key. That way you could customize the look of the keyboard and what they keys say depending on what game you play. I also think the use of voice in game that was really kicked off by the SOCOM games will be a major thing that game companies will need to use. Thinks like calling time outs in a basketball game or the types of plays you want to run. Anyway.....with every bit of info that comes out for the 360 and PS3....I keep leaning further and further towards waiting for the PS3.
Just to follow-up on the difficulties of developing for multiple cores... Apparently, the EA team that is doing Medal of Honor for the PS3 is using the main core and at least 3 SPEs, although they're aiming to use the other 4 for some effects such as "physics, particles, AI, and so on." Here's the article: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6552 It sounds like EA is planning on using all 7 SPEs of Cell for a early game (not one coming out in 2009), so I guess the rumblings about the difficulties of multi-core development were a bit overblown (probably by primarily PC devs). I suppose some early games could use just the main core (and maybe a few SPEs) and RSX, but I doubt it will take years to finally use each of the 8 cores in games. Also, it sounds a bit like at least some EA games are being based on the PS3. That's kind of interesting.
PS3 hands down! its going to be faster fo sho, it has a cell processor, screw microsoft(you know all their stuff is unstable especially windows, all that spyware)! go sony and apple!
There have been some developer comments recently about the PS3/Xbox 360 power difference. First off, quotes from David Jaffe (designed games such as the Twisted Metal series, God of War, etc.) and John Carmack (legendary PC programmer/game designer, Doom/Quake/RTCW and other iD games). The following is quoted from another board about the quotes: Take it for what you will. Jaffe is usually pretty honest about things if you ever check out his blog, but obviously his quotes should be met with at least some doubt since his checks get signed by Sony. Plus, I don't think Jaffe himself really knows too much about console hardware, although he obviously knows people who do (God of War team, for example). Carmack is probably more believable since he does not like Microsoft or DirectX, not to mention his love for Nvidia. However, he hasn't done much in the console world, and it may be possible that he just prefers the Xbox 360 CPU since it is closer to PC hardware than Cell. Plus, he's shown some "displeasure" with Sony before as well. Of course, their quotes don't necessarily contradict each other either. The PS3 could be "far and away more powerful" but not quite "an order of a magnitude." That last term may seem general (ala "considerably more powerful" or something like that), but the term generally refers to something 10x more powerful (or more). So if that's what he meant, the PS3 could lie somewhere between "far and away more powerful" and "ten times more powerful." Carmark's comments may have just been referring mostly to the ease of development for each. As I said earlier, the Xbox 360 CPU does have an advantage over Cell in that regard, especially for PC devs. Game Informer Online also interviewed a Rumble Roses developer about the consoles: http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200509/N05.0916.2039.01789.htm
Sigh. Anyway, those differing developer opinions is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Hell, they're actually making the games and even they can't decide. Too many different factors, to me, that are far more important than the machine's tech specs.
Who said they couldn't decide? Two of them pretty much said the PS3 was either "much quicker" and "far and away more powerful." The other one just said it wasn't "an order of a magnitude more powerful," and that he preferred the Xbox 360, most likely due to the ease of development.
I know, but what I mean is it doesn't really make a difference. They still both prefer different things. Not too mention it's a reach to rationalize what any of it means. What's 'far and away'? What's an order of magnitude? Who cares? I just feel that, even if the XBOX360 or PS3 or whatever is more powerful, it doesn't automatically mean its games are going to be better. If that was the case, then MS and N (well maybe not N, since they're doing something different anyway) might as well just close up shop and call it a night. And if it doesn't mean that...then what's the point? If the PS3 was less powerful than the XBOX, and had all the great games only, I wouldn't even look twice at the XBOX. That works both ways. I understand that the numbers game is important to some people. But that's not the case for those who pretty much disregard tech specs. To me, that's the main point... I just care about the games.
If guys like Carmack and Gabe Newell had their way, each next-gen console would have a Pentium 4 or something like that as a CPU. That's what they prefer, but it is far from the best possible hardware available. I like those PC devs, but they have been doing a lot of unnecessary whining lately; meanwhile, developers like Epic and Konami embrace the new technology and are showing games that look MUCH better than any game shown thus far. I think it is pretty self-explanatory what Jaffe meant by "far and far away." He was referring to those people who considered the two to be close to each other in power. I already explained what an order of magnitude was. If that's not what he meant, I would think he would have used different words (much quicker, much more powerful, considerably more powerful, etc). Actually, I just noticed he was referring to the PS3's power compared to "anything else." Being a PC developer, he could have been referring to new PC hardware. Nvidia should have a new card out around next summer or so that will be better than the RSX. SLI that up, put in 1-2GB of RAM, and give Carmack a PC CPU, and he'll be happy. OK, for the 1000th time, I know a more powerful console won't automatically have the best games, especially if there isn't too much of a gap. A good combination of hardware power and developer support is needed for that. Luckily for Sony, it appears as though the PS3 will be the most powerful console, possibly by quite a margin, and it has at least some of the same support the PS2 got. I'd go wherever my favorite games go, but I'm glad there's a chance that my favorite developers will be working with the most powerful hardware available, and therefore, most likely won't face the possible limitations the other consoles may have.
I think you're doing a lot of inferring to get the meaning here you're looking for. Unless you have a link to where Carmack explains what he meant by 'order of magnitude'? Then there isn't much more we can discuss there. We'll have to agree to disagree on the point of exactly where each aspect of a system ranks; I feel the games themselves are where I put my focus.
I don't have a link to what Carmack meant by that term, but I have a link to the common use of that term. This is what wiki has on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude So again, an "order of magnitude" more powerful would mean 10 times more powerful. Maybe Carmack meant something else, but considering his familiarity with terms like these, I doubt he would have used that particular term if he really meant something else. It would have been much easier to use some other term, especially one that doesn't have a page at Wikipedia, but he used that one. I just don't see why he would have stated it like that if he meant something else. If that's not what he meant, then I'm not the only one that "inferred" that from his statement. We could've ended the discussion a long time ago if that's all you needed to hear. I've been saying that over and over and over. The only thing I wanted to prove was that, all else equal, better tech = better games. I focus on games as much as anything; its just that I sometimes look at it in a different perspective that some of you. Hardware power has a direct effect on the games, so therefore, it should be an important factor (the bigger the gap, the bigger the factor). Similarly, the number of exclusive great games a console has a similar influence, IMO (the more games, the bigger this factor is).
