Rage Runs Faster on 360 than PS3, Carmack Confirms

Meh, Hopefully it'll be better on release. These vs threads are so last year :p They arent even debates. Debates are fun. Generally its 1 guy who thinks it'll never happen, another with an open mind, and then 2 teams who sex their PS3\360. It's boring
 
Two versions of a game that are not going to be gold disked till at least next year - I think it's safe to say that the PS3 edition is just taking longer due to the more complex hardware, it'll be up to similar speeds by launch.

To be honest, it seems like a silly thing for Carmack to say - as Fanboys will take hold of this and squeeze it for all it's worth when really at the end of the day, the game is still heavily in development, and you don't judge an end product by a glitchy beta, or alpha.

Rich
 
Streeteh said:
Hmm, dunno, in terms of gameplay yeah it was nothing special, but when was the last time a shooter did anything new with the gameplay? It was however the first FPS i know of to have full dynamic lighting and proper physics based puzzles, two things that are now staple features of shooters. The game itself was nothing special, but technologically it was ground breaking.
Click to expand...

Really? Its a shame I never noticed those things as I was too busy doing full 360 turns every 5 seconds to blast some random spawning demons.

I did enjoy it though, just looking back now, it was kinda stupid.
 
Skyfall said:
I don't see hoe being clueless about PS3 is a bad point for developers, surely the problem lies with the PS3's architecture and SDK?
Click to expand...

Consoles have always had unique architectures, it's only since Microsoft's "PC in a box" with their DirectX monopoly that games developers (especially PC developers) have been spoiled and started porting all their games to console.
 
mmj_uk said:
Consoles have always had unique architectures, it's only since Microsoft's "PC in a box" with their DirectX monopoly that games developers (especially PC developers) have been spoiled and started porting all their games to console.
Click to expand...

Well aren't Sony shooting themselves in the foot? If it's hard to do, developers simply will not bother, time is money...
 
PiKe said:
Why should the PS3 be so hard to code for though?
Click to expand...

Parallel processing seems to be a bugger. Deciding how to split up things, how to get them all running together, how to make sure executions finish in the right order, all sorts of mumbo jumbo like that. (I haven't a clue really.)

You can write your own code, your own APIs and whathaveyou for the PS3 so there is more scope for better performance but only the really dedicated would do this because it's not going to be used for other platforms. PC and Xbox 360 MUST stick to the DirectX APIs.

I think it's widely regarded that the MS dev tools are better than the Sony ones although they might have sorted that out somewhat with the EDGE stuff.
 
PiKe said:
Well aren't Sony shooting themselves in the foot? If it's hard to do, developers simply will not bother, time is money...
Click to expand...

Looking at all the games developed just for the PS3, Uncharted, Killzone 2. Aswell as others but i dont fancy reeling off a list. The PS3 is powerful, and worth the time and effort. Unfortunately, TIME IS MONEY. as you say.

I'd prefer to see games from companies who take the time to make the game perfectly, and then see the fantastic money return. Rather than half ass the PS3 version, after getting it right on 360.
 
Last edited:
PiKe said:
Well aren't Sony shooting themselves in the foot? If it's hard to do, developers simply will not bother, time is money...
Click to expand...

There was more to selecting Cell for the PS3 than its performance as a gaming component. Sony wanted to use the PS3 as a means to market their own hardware, the Cell and Bluray being the technologies touted. Both have displayed disadvantages for gaming (slow read speed of blurays and difficult to programme games for the Cell) but also both have been taken up very well into other industries. I would argue that HDDVD would have been a far greater threat to Bluray if the PS3 didn't have a bluray drive as standard for example and last i heard many developers were very interested in the Cell for other projects.

Basically it's made them money in ways other than gaming.

Oh and, Sony have stated several times in the past that they plan to use Cells in the next console too, so i guess there's the advantage that developers will be used to that sort of architecture so will be able to get the most out of it from the get go. Dunno though, that's just speculation.

wannabedamned said:
I'd prefer to see games from companies like take the time to make the game perfectly, and then see the fantastic money return. Rather than half ass the PS3 version, after getting it right on 360.
Click to expand...

I agree and fortunately that seems to becomming a trend. Both the PS3 releases of Tales of Vesperia and Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 are being touted as the 'definitive versions' of the game. I'd rather wait and get something as good/a bit better than get a turd on the same day, god, Ninja Gaiden 2 with an even lower framerate would have been terrible.
 
Last edited:
he's said before that ps3 is more powerful (or at least more "headroom") but harder to code for. Also read that he expects the PS3 version to look better than the 360 version..
 
Streeteh said:
Oh and, Sony have stated several times in the past that they plan to use Cells in the next console too, so i guess there's the advantage that developers will be used to that sort of architecture so will be able to get the most out of it from the get go. Dunno though, that's just speculation.
Click to expand...

IMHO, this HAS to happen. If Sony change architecture again they may as well sell the business before it folds. LOL.

Remember too, the Cell chip was envisaged to be both CPU + GPU in the PS3 but it didn't work out like that hence the quick rush job to nVidia for a chip.
 
PiKe said:
Why should the PS3 be so hard to code for though?
Click to expand...

Mostly because Sony stuck a server class CPU in their gaming console. It was a publicity stunt to spread the Cell processors name and encourage Cell purchases for server hardware. The Cell is counter intuitive for game development compared to MS's choice of CPU.
 
The PS3 is on the same level as 360 but it requires totally custom code to get that out.

It's not really fair to call the developers lazy as the 360 and PC share very similar structures and then you have to make a totally different version of the game for the PS3.


That's why PS3 exclusives are stunning, because they are built from the ground up for PS3. Cross platform games usually get shafted on PS3.
 
you would think that the last thing anybody would want is to make it harder to program but thats what sony did. Now we have a situation where developers are plunging probably hundreds of thousands extra at development for the ps3 just to bring the games up to scratch with teh 360 equivilents.


I'd argue that there's nothing software-wise that the ps3 does that the 360 cant, and probably visa versa with the small problem of the extra outlay.

Was it a wise choice to stick such a parallel processor which its obvious draw backs in a gaming console? i dont think it was - i dont think there's ANYTHING the ps3 does that warrants such a complicated piece of hardware which they are now stuck with.

I'm still waiting for the time when ps3 just are just going to BE better, if you listen to certain people that was supposed to happen this year. lol, has it happened yet? i must have missed it.I really think people have put too much faith in the ps3 hardware and that it isnt the all round powerhouse that it was supposed to be. But that's a question without an answer really - the only answers you'll find are 'next year, next year, next year'.
 
Last edited:
Dutch Guy said:
Wasn't that because of the limited space on a DVD that they might have to lower textures, or was/is that a different game or rubbish anyway?
Click to expand...

i think its to do with that. From the snippet i read (him talking at Quakecon) he was bigging up Bluray space potential.
 
redporshe said:
Wow not a single troll in this thread :P
Click to expand...

Are you being sarcastic? Because i think the debate in this thread has been pretty good, i can't see anyone who's flame baited or made massive uneducated sweeping comments like you'd have seen this time last year.

james.miller said:
Was it a wise choice to stick such a parallel processor which its obvious draw backs in a gaming console? i dont think it was - i dont think there's ANYTHING the ps3 does that warrants such a complicated piece of hardware which they are now stuck with.
Click to expand...

See Kreeeees and my previous replies. Putting the Cell (and bluray) into the PS3 was not done with gaming performance as the highest priority, it's a marketing tool in order to get those two technologies better exposure. I'd argue that it's worked with bluray trouncing HDDVD despite HDDVD being superior in the early part of their lifetime and the Cell is receiving great interest in the server industry.

They're a business at the end of the day, and using the PS3 to market their own technologies for greater gain in other industries seems to be paying off in the long run.
 
Last edited:
So shouldnt the headline be PS3 version runs slower at present but will run as fast when finished, and only be one one disk?
Shouldnt Carmack be building the hype on his game instead of joining in the mud slinging fan boy wars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom