The PoP games suck

God of War was cool but i don' t rate it as highly as some do

I hate you.

I woud like to point out I wasn' t dissing PS3' s grahpics but defending it cos early builds of games are subject to jaggy-ness (or the opposite if they' re pre-rendered =/) That' s why I was comparing it to Too Human' s demo in EGM (which looks worse IMO, or maybe cos it was a really big close-up)

I was joking about dissing the PS3. But check out the Motorstorm screenshots,
clearly we have underestimated CELL....

and low resolution photography

To be fair, 360' s Too Human is pretty jaggy as well (and that Balder has the pouty lips of a trans Lara Croft) according to the screenshots taken by EGM' s hands-on review of it.

I' ll give it the benefit of the doubt for now, till we get the real deal and the comparison wars between PS3 and 360 begin.

I dont agree at all.

Show me those jaggies.

Back to topic,well its still in alpha coming in 2007.
They probably didnt have 4xAA to make the alpha code run in good frame rate for E3.

Direct-feed doesn' t mean somebody playing it and it being filmed. Direct-feed would be captured by hardware hooked up to the machine the thing is running on and would only be made available by the developers themselves.

I know - it' s just that there are vids from show floor where you see people atually playing this game.

Yeah, and it looks f*cking great!

I dislike cams though. The staff at Kikizo do a superb job encoding their videos, but most cams on other sites are terrible. Compressed into small sizes which greatly degrades the quality of the footage and encoding them as 30fps to keep file sizes down. Sucks!

I download 60 fps ign insider movies some in 720p

ORIGINAL: Utgardaloki

...And SONY was even talking about playing games in 1080p x2(!) on PS3. What type of games did they have in mind? Very wide versions of tetris? Or how about a very wide type of chess game?...

Classic!

Looks like Scott Henson (Director of Microsoft' s Game Technology Group) called it correctly when he said 1080p is basically impossible! We' ll see if Sony can squeeze a game out with such a high resolution. x2!! Gimme a break! How full of shit are those guys? All in an effort to hurt 360 sales! I think they hurt their own credibility more than anything.

Remember look at FEAR to pc.
The dev themself said,run at 1024' 768,its the perfect settings for this game.
What i mean is,even at that it was the best fps i seen so far.

GRAPHIC ENGINE -----> RESOLUTION

dont let 1280' 720 pr 1920' 1080 fool you,graphic engine always win :P

Actually PS3 will most certainly be capable of displaying games at 1080p and some of the games on the E3 show floor were said to be using it. Its just that it might mean a huge trade off in terms of how much can be put on screen vs. how much could have been put on screen had they opted for 720p.

Content and physics wise the PS3 seems to surpass the 360' s abilities due to the Cell. Cloth physics, hair flow, intricate character animation and the likes will not affect the graphics processor very much since it is affected mainly by the number of pixels that need to be calculated rather than how they behave. And that' s the crux since at 1080p the number of pixels nearly doubles from 720p.
For the 360 they opted for very good and efficient handling of 720p/1080i and gave it the 10MB buffer with added logic to handle things like antialiasing. But because it is so " customised" towards these resolutions it also means it will most certainly be very bad at handling 1080p. Much worse than the PS3. But this trade off seems quite wise. The resolutions the 360 can handle it can do better than PS3 on a pixel per pixel basis. PS3 on the other hand can move all the way up to 1080p but it will handle those just as inefficiently as it does 720p only now it has to produce twice the number of pixels. And consequently twice the number of pixels and bandwidth for antialiasing. Might turn out slow. And thus SONY' s claims of games with scenes of epic proportions having thousands of characters on screen using the latest graphical wizbang for a movie like experience at 1080p seem downright stupid. Hell would it even be possible at 720p?

I thought SONY would announce a processor capable of enormous fillrates and containing some kind of embedded framebuffer but they did neither. So without the antialiasing aid and without the enormous fillrates and without an insane video bandwidth how can they claim it to be so enormously powerfull? In the end the RSX seems to get whooped in all of these cathegories by the 360 regarding the final outcome. Is it simply because it can do 1080p and the 360 can not? If that is all SONY has then they sure don' t have much. The last time I looked the cheapest screens and projectors sporting native 1080p resolution were everyting else than cheap. What is 1080p to brag about seing as just about no one will be capable of viewing their games like that?

And 1080p x2 is just damned funny. What would that have cost? And seing as the most powerfull PCs on the planet start to choke at 3 megapixels in the latest games and SONY had no problem announcing their machine would be capable of pulling off 4 megapixels+ at 60 fps (having a much weaker processor than the above) you just got to love them.

yep you are right the 1080px2 its pointlessssss and sony knows that almost
no one have 2 1080p tvs and that 99 % of the developers will not support it.
its a trick to show how powerfull the ps3.is..
the only advantage i think ps3 will have is on fps ? some added polygs ?
i think the 360 will have better...more.. textures ? we will see........
anyway bring on some good games first

3 megapixels in the latest games and SONY had no problem announcing their machine would be capable of pulling off 4 megapixels+ at 60 fps (having a much weaker processor than the above)

never heard of that 3 megapixels in any benchmark, megapixels of what would you please explain , and i thought that Cell is the most powerful processor out there ....

1280 pixels times 720 pixels = 921600 pixels = 0.921600 megapixels

ORIGINAL: Abasoufiane

never heard of that 3 megapixels in any benchmark, megapixels of what would you please explain

In benchmarks people normally refer to resolution. Megapixels are sometimes used in order to point out the difference in detail between different resolutions or to point out the number of framebuffer pixels needed to be filled by the graphics processor in order to create one frame.
On PCs the highest resolution you can run games in right now is 2048x1536 (3,145728 megapixels). SONY claimed 1920x1080 times 2 would be possible on PS3 (2,073600 megapixels x2 = 4,147200 megapixels) at 60 fps.
To put things into perspective: The RSX (most probably) has 24 pixel engines running at 550Mhz which gives a fillrate of 13,2 gigasamples/sec.
Compare that to a PC using two 7900GTX: 15,6 gigasamples x2 = 31,2 gigasamples minus the loss for running in SLI which gives the end result of up to about 25 gigasamples/sec fillrate (an estimate since SLI makes performance shift between different games). Even a fillrate monster like this will start to show signs of smoke once HDR, bumpmaps, normalmaps, 4x AA, 8x anisotropic, trasparent texture AA plus more kick in at 2048x1536 resolution. Even at 1080p this PC has got problems using settings like this. And how ever stupid it might sound SONY has claimed " movie quality graphics" for the PS3. Then these settings are what you need in order to simply begin pulling that off. If a 2000$ PC can' t do it then...

i thought that Cell is the most powerful processor out there ....

Sorry. I wrote processor but I meant graphics processor.
And about Cell being the most powerfull CPU. Cell looks to be the most powerfull CPU conserning things like physics, AI and number of things on screen. As a general purpose CPU on the other hand it looks to be the second weakest of the next gen machines placing itself right above the Wii and below the others. SONY is hoping though that the 7 SPEs will offload the main core in the areas where they are supposed to be very efficient.
The 360 has 3 CPU cores and capable of handling 2 hardware threads each at a time. And they are of the general purpose type. Such cores aren' t very efficient at handling things like physics though. And the more intricate animations, complicated behavior and physics that will start to find their ways into new games the 360' s lead over PS3 conserning general purpose calculations might quickly start to narrow as the 360' s 3 cores will have to dedicate ever more power to things the Cell is most likely better suited for.

So the Cell is very customised towards a certain type of game scene. A game scene that is aimed towards creating a much more movie like type of action rather than the very generic type of action we find in videogames today due to the CPUs' limitations in keeping track of and controling many things at the same time. So for in a scene where most things are supposed to be destructible the 360' s main cores will have to constantly track all destructible things in order to determain whether something is about to change and when ever something does change those cores will have to calculate the physical behavior of it and animate it. On Cell sequential tracking like this can simply be offloaded to an SPE and when ever something happens the SPE will start running the physics sequenses to determain in which direction every bit and piece wil start travelling and with how much force etc. At lest that' s the idea.
The SPEs are mostly designed towards these types of things so while they can' t do much else, in situations like the above they are supposed to be pretty darn powerfull. Take the gas station explosion demo for exemple. That explosion was supposedly not preanimated but rather ran as a pure physics program. In other words that explosion didn' t exist within the PS3 memory. The Cell just created it on the fly accoarding to real laws of physics described by the physics program. If that is true then that is damned impressive. Normal ingame explosions are " stuck" not only conserning the way they look but also regarding the way they behave and the number of ways they can influence their surroundings. Calculations like this can have a huge impact not only on how things will look but rather determain what types of interactivity and consequenses will be possible within a scene. Gameplay could benefit alot from this or at least receive more possibilities if done right.

So the really interesting thing about PS3 for me is the Cell, not the graphics (it just irratates me how SONY keeps claiming the PS3 will blow everything else away graphics wise).
But since Cell is more specialised you probably need more specialised programming to pull that off. That might prove difficult. And the RSX will have to be able to keep up once the Cell starts throwing alot of shite at it.

all right thanks for the info people