What are the Real differences between consoles?

Overheal

From here,

Overheal wrote:

the problem really seems to be the PS3: Sony's answer to the niggling problem that essentially all that variates consoles is the controller, who has the latest hardware, and a proprietary disc drive. They just went and pulled a stupid with the Cel Processor if you ask me. Making a proprietary processor thats a bitch to code for: oh yes, thats progress.

Am I right? Or are there some true bonafide differences between consoles anymore? Were there ever?

Dont get me wrong competition is great and all that. I just figure if you broke down a Megadrive and a SNES that they effectively boil down to the same thing. a PS2 is a souped up PS1 and the Dreamcast was God's misunderstood lovechild.

Are there any I guess, Core differences? Its easier to explain differences between a DS and a PSP, but for most of these consoles it just seems like youre paying for the cosmetics and whichever company can secure the most exclusive licensing rights. Theyre just PCs with different fixed-configurations, at the end of the day.

You can see why Im a PC gamer. I build my own damn console, essentially, and I get to play whatever the hell I want. At a stretch I can probably get Ps2 games to run on this if I put the effort and scallywagging into it. but lets not

rizzla

It really is just small differences with the biggest difference being console exclusive games. Company's like to spout how it's more than just a console, it's a media centre, it's for social networking, etc. There all just bullet points on a power point presentation that fanboys like to list off to say their console is better. When it comes down to it though they're near enough identical.

I couldn't be bothered with PC gaming though, too much hassle. That's why I buy consoles.

BopNiblets

Overheal wrote: »

Theyre just PCs with different fixed-configurations, at the end of the day.

Agreed, I think I remember reading you could use a standard PC PATA DVD drive in the first XBox or something, lols.

If 360 or PS3 did spreadsheets what would be the difference except for price?

This is a dead giveaway of the disguised PC they've snuck into people homes and heads!


*looks forward to playing Uncharted 2 on PS3 emulator in the near future*

Retr0gamer

There's big differences between consoles. I'd try and explain but I think some one with more tech experience should take a stab at it. Basically the PS3 has an amazing processor but it's non standard compared to the 360 architecture which is based on standard PC architecture which everyone knows. The PS3 however is bottle necked due to a much inferior GFX chipset compared to the excellent chipset in the 360. The PS3's design with it's multiple satellite SPU's was meant to use it's SPU's to take strain of the gfx processor but most companies don't bother doing this leading to much inferior looking games on the PS3. Only really Sonys first party games have been made by developers that understand the architecture and make games that look as good as or arguably better looking than the 360. The PS3's also has some nice tricks up it's sleave to disguise some of it's inadequacies particularly in it's GPU where it has trouble with multiple transparency effects or distortion effects compared to the 360. The PS3 can dynamically lower the resolution during hectic moments and display an image through a transparency in much lower resolution.

It really was a big mistake Sony to go the route of proprietary architectre. The Cell processor isn't as amazing as they made it out to be, but that the usual Sony BS we heard with every new console. They should have learnt their lesson with the PS2 which had some shockingly bad looking games compared to the less powerful but much better designed Dreamcast especially in the early year or two. They should also have known to concentrate on a better gfx card instead of cpu since it's what made the PS1 so much better than the Saturn.

If you want to get a good insight on this read Richard Leadbetters excellent multiformat face off articles on digital foundry.

As for other consoles I can only really speak for the SNES and Megadrive which were again two very different beasts. The MD sound chip was a horrible FM synth chip, while the snes had a proprietary sony made DSP chip which is one of the greatest sound chips ever made and sounds gorgeous. It's a better sound chip than what was in the PS1. The megadrive could only display 64 out of a palette of 512 colours while the snes could display over 32000 colours and had transparency and mode 7 hardware scaling and rotation of a background plane. This is why the megadrive had such drab looking games compared to the SNES and only the very best developers could get transparency and fake rotation effects out of the megadrive late in it's life. Thes SNES had one big problem, it's main CPU was dire, almost the same speed as the master systems. Thats why games like gunstar heroes on the megadrive could turf around tonnes or sprites while snes games slowed down and flicked quite a bit. The snes had a high res mode but this was only ever used in the start menu of secret if mana and secret of evermore. The SNES was quite different from anything else at the time but was very easy to get to grips with while the mega drive was a doddle since it was based on the very common 68000.

One great example of how very similar hardware can differ is the megadrive and neo geo. Looking at the specs they are also the same console yet there's no way in hell the Megadrive could pull off Metal Slug.

Usually during the console war the hardware differs greatly from each other.

TomCo

http://beautifulpixels.blogspot.com/2008/08/multi-platform-multi-core-architecture.html

This helps explain the differences between the architectures of the major consoles around at the mo.

They really, really arent just PC's with different configurations. Console are special purpose machines designed, basically, just to play games. They are designed from the ground up just to do this.

PC's are general purpose computing devices that can do a million and one things, one of which is play games. The general purpose design of CPU's for PC's reflect this.

Stephen

Modern consoles are becoming more like general purpose PC's though - look at the PS3 with its Linux (although I believe they're dropping support for that in the slim), web browser, media streaming, blu-ray films, etc. Games are only one of many things it does. Even their advertising slogan (here in the US anyway) is "It only does EVERYTHING".

TomCo

Stephen wrote: »

Modern consoles are becoming more like general purpose PC's though - look at the PS3 with its Linux (although I believe they're dropping support for that in the slim), web browser, media streaming, blu-ray films, etc. Games are only one of many things it does. Even their advertising slogan (here in the US anyway) is "It only does EVERYTHING".

True, but they are still designed to a tighly specced known list of applications - the most important and influenetial (from a design point of view) of which is gaming.

Tea_Bag

Finally, a proper thread about the consoles that doesnt have "PS3/360 is better" etc. being an Xbox gamer myself, i sometimes wonder if the ps3 hasnt reached its full potential yet, with the coding for the Cell, whereas the 360 is just a tripple core PC that hasnt really got future "unlockable" potential.

Kiith

Tea_Bag wrote: »

Finally, a proper thread about the consoles that doesnt have "PS3/360 is better" etc.

Give it time.

PogMoThoin

Kiith wrote: »

Give it time.

Lets hope this works, there's never been a discussion about consoles on here that didn't turn into a flaming war

super_furry

As a gamer if a game I want is on both consoles, I'll go for the 360 version. The controller is the biggest deal for me - I think the 360's is brilliant and PS3's poor. Multi-player is a big factor for me too because most of my friends play on Xbox Live, with only a handful of PSN. Finally and least importantly, I'd go for achievements over trophies.

Having said that, my PS3 is seeing more action than ever thanks to Demon Souls and what I consider to be the game of the generation so far - Drakes 2.

CiDeRmAn

Unless the game is exclusive to a given format there is precious little between the two machines in real terms.
The performance differences will, undoubtedly become more pronounced as companies switch from using the 360 as the lead development plaform to the PS3, when compromises will have to be made given the extra horse power of the Sony machine.
But, for the time being, it's all the same.

In the long run, the next 3/4 years, the 360 is going to look really tired, unless Natal suceeds in re-launching it into the Wii customer sphere, where gameplay is more important than visuals.
And thats another thing, the sucessor to the Wii can be no more than 2 years away, and we will then have a console combining Nintys incredible grasp of the casual gamers wallet and proper current gen visuals.
It could steal the game from everyone, Sony and MS included.

Retr0gamer

The PS3 really doesn't have much extra horsepower over the 360 if any. The GFX card is really bottle necking the PS3.

cherryghost

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The PS3 really doesn't have much extra horsepower over the 360 if any. The GFX card is really bottle necking the PS3.

that and the fact sony are PROUD that it takes longer to develop games on the platform, not to mention Microsofts insanely long waiting list to approve patches for the games.

At the end of the day:

PS3 has better CPU grunt than a 360.
360 has more grunt in its GPU than a PS3.

which pretty much balances everything out!

Retr0gamer

Not really. A more powerful dedicated GPU for taking the load off the CPU is far more important than a more powerful CPU. As anyone with a PC knows you can get years of use out of a decent CPU but it's the GPU that usually needs upgrading every so often. The SPU's on the Cell were supposed to help out with the GPU load but just aren't optimised for it like a dedicated GPU and most third parties hardly use the SPU's. The biggest advantage of the 360 GPU is the 10MB of lightning fast eDRAM on board which gives it an edge in outputting more detail and effects a lot quicker.

I must admit the arrogance out of Sony's PR people has always been hilarious, were every flaw is made out to not be a flaw but a massive advantage

Nichololas

XBox owners talk like this, Wii owners talk like this.

PS3 owners have no one to talk to.

Overheal

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Not really. A more powerful dedicated GPU for taking the load off the CPU is far more important than a more powerful CPU.

Heres some backup for that claim: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-gpu-wifi-hack,6483.html

Russian Hackers reportedly broke through WPA and WPA2 encryption using a brute force attack coupled with Nvidia’s GPUs. With no mention of which specific card was used in the discovery, the card supposedly increased password recovery up to 10,000 percent faster.

cherryghost

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Not really. A more powerful dedicated GPU for taking the load off the CPU is far more important than a more powerful CPU. As anyone with a PC knows you can get years of use out of a decent CPU but it's the GPU that usually needs upgrading every so often. The SPU's on the Cell were supposed to help out with the GPU load but just aren't optimised for it like a dedicated GPU and most third parties hardly use the SPU's. The biggest advantage of the 360 GPU is the 10MB of lightning fast eDRAM on board which gives it an edge in outputting more detail and effects a lot quicker.

I must admit the arrogance out of Sony's PR people has always been hilarious, were every flaw is made out to not be a flaw but a massive advantage

im a pc gamer, i know that.

what im saying is gpu is bottlenecking the ps3, and the 360 cpu will bottleneck the gpu at some point, or even, its started already. who knows.

Overheal

at some point?

Wasnt crysis edit - ever launched on the consoles? It doesnt seem like they would max it out or anything near to it.

Zillah

Technologically any differences or problems to be found amongst the various consoles are an entirely unnecessary byproduct of marketing. As a PC gamer I can't help but look at the entire console market and shake my head in dismay at a very needlessly messy situation.

I understand the desire for a more direct livingroom put-in-and-play sort of gaming, but there has to be a better way. Technologically there is certainly a better way, but the way the market shapes the design process is no less real than the way the laws of physics shapes the design process.

Overheal

You have to understand that Console Gaming long predates modern-concept Personal Computing. I think Doom was one of the earliest Console-Killers of its generation. Still back then, Computers were incredibly finnicky. Consoles were too, but it was easier by leaps and bounds to work with a NES than it was watching Windows 95 kill itself over and over.

But now we're at this empass where because of Red Rings of Death and Cel Processors that the PC is now not only the lead in raw performance but its also beginning to take over in terms of platform stability. Nothing much stands in the way of PC Developers enabling Split screen mode; the support is already there for everything else (and split screen is there for a small few). And a platform like Steam seems more than capable of doing what Xbox Live can do - And more. For instance, I would see zero reason to play L4D on the 360 when I can play it in precisely the same fasion on the PC, usally with better results.

Thats why the Wii hopped on motion control and why PS3 hopped on six-axis and why 360 is going full steam with Natal. Not that anything will stop a PC from doing any of those things, but it seems like the Console Companies are desperately trying to hold their ground on the Console Market. Theyre struggling from what I can see, to find anything that differentiates them from a PC. And they almost keep shooting themselves in the foot, all but marketing them as TVPCs.

Im not trying to bash them I just have trouble seeing the appeal. It was great when I had an Xbox that could run Halo 2 and a PC that could barely run black and white. But now I've got a laptop that can squeeze Crysis while my friends are still waiting for their 360's to come home from Redmond.

gizmo

While I now own both the 360 and PS3, my first consoles since the SNES, even as a long term PC gamer who still has a high end PC for certain titles, I find it hard to agree with you Overheal.

Overheal wrote: »

Nothing much stands in the way of PC Developers enabling Split screen mode

Except for the fact that most PCs are typically plugged into smaller LCD screens than their living room kin and usually located either in some corner of the room or even it's own office making them unacceptable for group play. Sure you could have it set up in such a way that it is closer to the centre of the room or at least within display cable range but surely you realise that is not what PCs, in general, are built for.

Overheal wrote: »

...but it seems like the Console Companies are desperately trying to hold their ground on the Console Market. Theyre struggling from what I can see, to find anything that differentiates them from a PC. And they almost keep shooting themselves in the foot, all but marketing them as TVPCs.

I completely and utterly disagree with this. If anything it's the other way around this generation as the consoles have been one of the primary reasons for the continuing decrease in PC games sales or, if you want to look at it another way, the dwarfing of them when comparing multi-platform sales. Look at the likes of Modern Warfare, part of a series which started on the PC and made it's reputation there, but which now sees its PC sales pale in significance to its console counterparts. On top of this we also see MW2 and Operation Flashpoint 2 lose dedicated server support and revert to the console style of matchmaking, again another move to bring PCs in line with consoles.

Even outside of games we're seeing consoles adopt features of PCs - on the 360 you have increasing amounts of social networking interaction with the likes of avatars, Last.fm, Twitter and Facebook whereas on the PS3 you have features like the BBC iPlayer app, internet browser and the forthcoming movie and TV services already available on the former system. What they're basically doing is cherry picking the best elements of what mainstream entertainment audiences want from the PC/internet and putting it on consoles. To back all of this up you also have USB/Bluetooth keyboard/mouse support on the consoles which is used in both the above features and also in some games, something which I think will increase in usage as both this generation matures and certainly more so in the next-gen of consoles.

Overall, I think the point I'm trying to make is that we're more likely to see a transition of traditional console to consumer friendly gaming-HTPC rather than from a desktop PC. That being said at the end of the day we'll end up with something that will be quite similar on a technological level but which will be viewed differently as a "console" by mainstream consumers due to the focused marketing of the big three console manufacturers.

Overheal

Even outside of games we're seeing consoles adopt features of PCs - on the 360 you have increasing amounts of social networking interaction with the likes of avatars, Last.fm, Twitter and Facebook whereas on the PS3 you have features like the BBC iPlayer app, internet browser and the forthcoming movie and TV services already available on the former system. What they're basically doing is cherry picking the best elements of what mainstream entertainment audiences want from the PC/internet and putting it on consoles. To back all of this up you also have USB/Bluetooth keyboard/mouse support on the consoles which is used in both the above features and also in some games, something which I think will increase in usage as both this generation matures and certainly more so in the next-gen of consoles.

Overall, I think the point I'm trying to make is that we're more likely to see a transition of traditional console to consumer friendly gaming-HTPC rather than from a desktop PC. That being said at the end of the day we'll end up with something that will be quite similar on a technological level but which will be viewed differently as a "console" by mainstream consumers due to the focused marketing of the big three console manufacturers.

Right. They will wind up being the XPSs etc. of Home Theatre Gaming. Similarly tailored to gaming, but hopefully to FSM they will not be so proprietary - Xbox 360 Hard Drives? Really, Microsoft?

So do you think we would see that? Settop Gaming machines tailored for 4-player roflstomp, but with some or the same interlopability of PCs and PC hardware: There should be nothing in the way of a Console Gamer (eg.) Upgrading their Hard Drive, or their Processor, or their RAM. The only kick in that whole plan seems to be Tray to Play.

DARK-KNIGHT

jesus why does anyone care which is better?

its all about personal preference not telling people buy whichever as x is **** lol!

anyways i have started to play jenga recently and its so much fun lol:)

Overheal

raycaulwell wrote: »

jesus why does anyone care which is better?

its all about personal preference not telling people buy whichever as x is **** lol!

anyways i have started to play jenga recently and its so much fun lol:)

Im not bashing anything here (though if I was - well **** how could I? The PS3 is a joke and the 360 is a big melting ball of Fail. But you can send your counter-arguments to my PM box).

At the moment, here in this thread, I am just GENUINELY Interested in the State of Console Gaming and ultimately the Future of Console Gaming (And henceforth, the Future of Home Gaming)

Its pointless bashing any platform. They ALL have problems. PCs included. Preference is all about which one you can tolerate most.

gizmo

Overheal wrote: »

Right. They will wind up being the XPSs etc. of Home Theatre Gaming. Similarly tailored to gaming, but hopefully to FSM they will not be so proprietary - Xbox 360 Hard Drives? Really, Microsoft?

So do you think we would see that? Settop Gaming machines tailored for 4-player roflstomp, but with some or the same interlopability of PCs and PC hardware: There should be nothing in the way of a Console Gamer (eg.) Upgrading their Hard Drive, or their Processor, or their RAM. The only kick in that whole plan seems to be Tray to Play.

Actually I see them more like the Popcorn Hour of gaming, basically a specifically built PC on the inside but with all the fiddly and boring bits hidden from the user and with similar functionality at a higher level. A practical example of this is the aforementioned app integration of Twitter/Facebook/iPlayer into the current consoles.

As for hardware, I think we're going to disagree here. For one I don't think that a console can ever have upgradeable hardware outside of hard drive space. If you do then you're immediately introducing a barrier to entry for the consumer as well as limiting a manufacturers ability to benefit from economics of scale over time. This is on top of the fact that consoles aren't designed for people who either know or, in many cases, want to upgrade their machine. They just want to buy a console that will last them 3-5 years where they know every game they pick up off the shelves will work and where they can look in magazines, read previews and know that whenever that fantastic looking game is going to be released that it'll work on their machine, problem free. The same cannot be said as assuredly from a PC gamers standpoint unfortuantely.

PogMoThoin

Now this is just pulling the piss

Overheal

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Now this is just pulling the piss

Ladies and Gentlemen: Exhibit A.

If consoles were still Innovating, they wouldn't be very worried about this sorta crap.

and thats the other problem too, its great they keep the price of the console low but then they go and pull dick moves like this just so they can keep themselves afloat: Whats the point??

tman

Overheal wrote: »

Dont get me wrong competition is great and all that. I just figure if you broke down a Megadrive and a SNES that they effectively boil down to the same thing. a PS2 is a souped up PS1 and the Dreamcast was God's misunderstood lovechild.

I wouldn't go that far... The SNES had far greater colour range (Mega drive was limited to 256 colours iirc, and it really showed!), it had a FAR superior sound chip (listen to the DKC soundtrack and try to argue otherwise!)
They were definitely a lot further apart technically then the PS3 and 360 are today.

In other words, mega drives are gay

Retr0gamer

The SNES had Super Metroid. Therefore it was better.

noodler

I don't think I understand enough about computers to contribute in a meaningful way on the viability of some sort of upgradeable console. (maybe thats a problem, I am not exactl a technophobe so if I am a little bewildered what about all the lads with PS3s/360s/wiis who onl bought it for the odd game of Fifa).

However, I will agree with Overheal regarding hardware reliability. Nothing, bar the odd printer, has even physcially broken for me on a PC. No matter, how many CDs, DVDs etc that I rip the laser never burns out in particular.

bugs

noodler wrote: »

However, I will agree with Overheal regarding hardware reliability. Nothing, bar the odd printer, has even physcially broken for me on a PC. No matter, how many CDs, DVDs etc that I rip the laser never burns out in particular.

Depends on the quality of the components. Console components suffer a great deal of problems, from bad quality to badly thought out cooling or design.
The PS3 for instance, is a console that has a life cycle that sony maintains is 10 years, i can't see many of the early machines making it anywhere near 10 years.
Though i suppose they never said the console would last 10 years, just that it will be supported that long!

citizen_p

wii is radical new thinking...... and sh!t
xbox is kind of inbetween .....(copied avatars from wii) but is still up there cos good games and community.
red ring of death is a load of sh!t though


playstation community is fairly ok but not amazing... only reason.....only about 10 people world wide have mics...... which is needed for console games.

Kernel

One's a great console, but it breaks after a while, and the company deliberately crippled it's media capabilities to sell more products.

One's a blu-ray player.

And one's a gamecube with a less useable controller.

That's it in a nutshell lads. I await your thanks.

noodler

Kernel wrote: »

One's a great console, but it breaks after a while, and the company deliberately crippled it's media capabilities to sell more products.

One's a blu-ray player.

And one's a gamecube with a less useable controller.

That's it in a nutshell lads. I await your thanks.

are ppl still trying to pass the ps3 off as nothing but a blu ray player?

smooch71

Kernel wrote: »

One's a great console, but it breaks after a while, and the company deliberately crippled it's media capabilities to sell more products.

One's a blu-ray player.

And one's a gamecube with a less useable controller.

That's it in a nutshell lads. I await your thanks.

You'll be left waiting.

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

Kernel

smooch71 wrote: »

You'll be left waiting.

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

Don't I? I've been a gaming nerd since the C64, owned most consoles up to and including the 3 mentioned. And a PSP and DS. I speak the harsh truth amigo.

360 is great, but faulty ****ty manufacturing from M$ who won't allow my hi-def xbox to play proper hi-def codecs. RROD everywhere.

Sony sucks for games. (PS3 and PSP.. although PS3 is improving)

Wii is a gimmick. Not much more powerful than a gamecube with a gimmicky controller which until recently didn't even behave as most were initially led to believe.

Now, why do you think that I don't know what I'm talking about? And why do people get so defensive about consoles? The last console I had any genuine love for was the Dreamcast... SNES before that.

Overheal

Oh yeah: How has that Wiimotion+ been going?

gizmo

Kernel wrote: »

Don't I? I've been a gaming nerd since the C64, owned most consoles up to and including the 3 mentioned. And a PSP and DS. I speak the harsh truth amigo.

360 is great, but faulty ****ty manufacturing from M$ who won't allow my hi-def xbox to play proper hi-def codecs. RROD everywhere.

Sony sucks for games. (PS3 and PSP.. although PS3 is improving)

Wii is a gimmick. Not much more powerful than a gamecube with a gimmicky controller which until recently didn't even behave as most were initially led to believe.

Now, why do you think that I don't know what I'm talking about? And why do people get so defensive about consoles? The last console I had any genuine love for was the Dreamcast... SNES before that.

While I wouldn't be so harsh as to say you don't know what you're talking about, there are still glaring inaccuracies in the above post.

First off, it's MS, not M$. Using the latter makes you look neither cool nor intelligent. The 360 is also not lacking support for "high definition codecs" it lacks support of certain containers which are used to store video and audio. Case in point, the 360 supports the widely used H264 codec however it does not support the mkv container which is used by certain rippers. Instead one must transcode it into an appropriate container which the 360 does support, such as mp4. Finally, the RROD problem has been getting smaller and smaller thanks to the later revisions of the console. I would say the vast majority of current issues are confined to either launch or soon after launch consoles. Personally I've had mine for nearly 2 years now and haven't had any problems with it, as have several of my mates.

The PS3 does not "suck for games" either as there are some great exclusives to be had for the console as well as several multi-platform games which are on par with their 360 counterparts. Can't speak for the PSP unfortuantely but bringing a handheld into the debate is a little bit unfair when you're stacking it up against the PC.

Finally, the Wii may be seen as a gimmick by many due to the insane amounts of shovelware available for it, however, that does not mean it should not be lauded for some of the great games on the console. Sure a lot of them are first party Nintendo titles but that's been an issue on most Nintendo consoles for the last few generations.

Note, this isn't me getting defensive about consoles, as I said in a post above I'm a long term PC gamer who still does a heck of a lot of gaming on said platform and who has only jumped back onto the console train this generation, but if we're going to have a discussion about this then we need to keep it accurate or else it'll just degenerate into another fanboy riddled mess.

As for Wii Motion+ Overheal, sales have been pretty strong for a peripheral which is only supported by six retail games thus far. Personally I'll be waiting for Red Steel 2 to see how it can be used properly in-game, especially considering how loose/sloppy controls was one of the major downfalls of the first game.

Retr0gamer

This article here examining the differences between the 360 and PS3 versions of ninja gaiden 2 pretty much sums up the strengths and weaknesses of both consoles with the game excelling in different areas in each case. It still needs to be taken with a pinch of salt considering the 1 year gap between the 360 and PS3 release.

I find it kind of interesting that the PS3 is beaten quite conclusively by the 360 in polygon output and alpha blending techniques because in the PS1 it was excelling in polygon output and alpha blending techniques which really helped convince people that the PS1 was a much better console than the opposition.

A few annoying things that I keep hearing from uninformed people that I'd like to say my piece on. The PSP is far from crap. My main grief with it is that the battery life is awful and the controls are uncomfortable for certain games. It certainly doesn't lack in great games. It has a heap of excellent games just compared to the wealth of amazing software on the DS it just can't compete.

Also say that the Wii has no good games is just ignorance. If you sre looking for the latest PES or Gear of War beater then the Wii isn't the place to look but the system does have a lot of very good games on it that just aren't mainstream and haven't been pushed. It can't compete with the PS3 or 360 but if you are willing to seek out the good games then you will be rewarded. I for one can't wait to play Muramasa: Demon Blade.

noodler

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I find it kind of interesting that the PS3 is beaten quite conclusively by the 360 in polygon output and alpha blending techniques because in the PS1 it was excelling in polygon output and alpha blending techniques which really helped convince people that the PS1 was a much better console than the opposition.

It never ceases to amaze me how much "blacker" the PS3 is compared to a 360.

Retr0gamer

Oops forgot the link
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ninjagaiden2-faceoff-article

smooch71

Kernel wrote: »

Don't I? I've been a gaming nerd since the C64, owned most consoles up to and including the 3 mentioned. And a PSP and DS. I speak the harsh truth amigo.

360 is great, but faulty ****ty manufacturing from M$ who won't allow my hi-def xbox to play proper hi-def codecs. RROD everywhere.

Sony sucks for games. (PS3 and PSP.. although PS3 is improving)

Wii is a gimmick. Not much more powerful than a gamecube with a gimmicky controller which until recently didn't even behave as most were initially led to believe.

Now, why do you think that I don't know what I'm talking about? And why do people get so defensive about consoles? The last console I had any genuine love for was the Dreamcast... SNES before that.

With respect, the title of the thread is what's the difference between the consoles. Not who can slate them the best.

Last night I finished Uncharted 2, and after playing a game like that, it's very hard to take a sweeping statement like "Sony sucks for games" seriously.

allanb49

It's nice to see a nice educated thought out adult talk on this subject rather than the usual fanboy stuff

eldin

I think all three current consoles are excellent in their own right.

Wii is great fun (and motion+ is a nice improvement btw) with a few people and has a few cracking single-player games - metroid, twilight princess etc. Its entire premise is completely different from any other console in history, it didn't aim for traditional gamers and has been a runaway success (sales figures and profits speak for themselves). I'll have more gimmicks like that please.

XBox has absolutely beautiful games and has the best catalogue of games of the three. It also has the most comfortable controller of the lot. It has the advantage of familiar architecture and decent development tools so shouldn't be any shortage of good games.

PS3 has some incredible games - anyone who bleats on about how 'hardcore' a gamer they are while claiming it sucks needs their head examined. WipeoutHD, Gran Turismo Prolog, Uncharted 2, SF4 etc. Its also only getting into its stride due to everyone having to get their heads around the new architecture, and I reckon we will see some more amazing games on it as more devs get used to it.

TomCo wrote: »

http://beautifulpixels.blogspot.com/2008/08/multi-platform-multi-core-architecture.html

This helps explain the differences between the architectures of the major consoles around at the mo.

The image for PS3 on that link looks wrong. I'm not sure if the PS3 uses a custom one but regular Cell processors have 9 cores: one PPE - 64-bit powerpc main core, and eight SPE's - 128-bit processors that take jobs from the PPE and executes them.

The PS3 has pretty limited memory, so each SPE has a local store and a DMA controller to stream data from either main memory or other SPE's local stores. Its the amount of stuff happening in parallel plus the unusual memory management that make the ps3 tough for developers.

Overheal, no offense or anything but I disagree with almost everything you wrote.
Consoles will never get more than replaceable hard drives as that would mean deviation of target platforms for developers and extra development costs. PC and console gaming are not converging, publishers are just trying to push crappy money spinners from the console world onto pc gamers by taking away some of the freedoms pc gamers have.
I think the consoles are stomping pc gaming pretty horribly the last couple of years, and the number of gamers with powerful pc's is tiny compared to the console install base. I still prefer PC but some of the annoyances are starting to get to me, so find myself at the consoles more and more.

gizmo

eldin wrote: »

The image for PS3 on that link looks wrong. I'm not sure if the PS3 uses a custom one but regular Cell processors have 9 cores: one PPE - 64-bit powerpc main core, and eight SPE's - 128-bit processors that take jobs from the PPE and executes them.

The PS3 has pretty limited memory, so each SPE has a local store and a DMA controller to stream data from either main memory or other SPE's local stores. Its the amount of stuff happening in parallel plus the unusual memory management that make the ps3 tough for developers.

Nope, that's correct. The Cell in the PS3 has 7 active SPUs with one used by the console's OS, hence there are 6 there for developers to play with. The other SPU is disabled to improve yields of the chip.

You're almost correct with the inherent programming difficulties too, the main problems faced by developers are the obviously new architecture to play with but also the memory bandwidth issue within the console and the graphics card which is inferior to that of the Xenos GPU found in the 360. As has been seen though, offloading some graphical work to the Cell has worked wonders for many devs, just look at the likes of Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 to see what concentrated development on the platform can yield.

Retr0gamer

PS3 games can look amazing but the games really need to be made to the systems strengths. The PS3 can't pump out the polygons like the PS3 or do as many elaborate alpha blending effects but as seen with Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 they can take the same approach that Metroid Prime did on hte gamecube. The low resolution textures and lower polygon counts in those games are disguised by excellent use of shaders that the 360 hasn't a hope of pumping out which effectively negates the lower resolution texture problem and adds a whole lot more depth to textures. The PS3 is also very good at handling HDR effects and shadows which can really add to the look of a game were if the 360 were to do them compromises will have to be made. Also good use of art assets can work wonders, the elaborate and varied architecture of Killzone 2 and uncharted 2 will always look better than higher polygon but cut and paste levels as seen in Halo 3.

Jazzy

for me, the pad and a smattering of games and thats it

Kernel

gizmo wrote: »

First off, it's MS, not M$. Using the latter makes you look neither cool nor intelligent.

I'm not trying to sound cool or intelligent. My ego is perfectly healthy thanks very much. I say M$ because they are a greedy corporation who are more interested in making money by selling more copies of Media Centre software by crippling what would be a great multimedia machine. Instead I have to buy a popcorn hour.

Plus their attitude to homebrew stinks, when the 360 has already been pirate hacked for years. And they don't know how to manufacture a reliable product.

eldin wrote:

PS3 has some incredible games - anyone who bleats on about how 'hardcore' a gamer they are while claiming it sucks needs their head examined. WipeoutHD, Gran Turismo Prolog, Uncharted 2, SF4 etc.

None of those games are incredible. Same **** with better graphics eldin. No killer apps there, but the 360 beats the snot out of PS3 for game selection.

Sorry to upset people, but my point is all 3 consoles have a lot of problems. I hate them all bar the 360, and that keeps breaking.

Otacon

eldin wrote: »

Uncharted 2

Kernel wrote: »

No killer apps there

Wrong, just wrong tbh.

N-line

Well, xbox360 is for now only, and ps3 is kinda "step to future" max traffic allowance of games in xbox is 10gb and in ps3 is 25gb (i'm not sure i'm right) but i'm sure that ps3 have more allowance, so therefore you will be able to play more realistic and better games and etc etc