sorry to be the bearer of bad news folks...

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/1590.html

EA: Madden 08 PS3 "Will Not Run At 60fps"

Madden NFL 08
+ Madden NFL 08

A major recent controversy on the Internet has concerned the frame rate speed of several EA Sports productions; NCAA Football 08 and Madden NFL 08. Initially, we learned these games would only run at 30fps on the PS3 and 60fps on the Xbox 360, but a variety of reports over the past few months have led us to believe the PS3 version of Madden will also run at 60fps.

However, the latest reports all came about from a recent interview with the EA team working on Madden, and the 60fps comment was misquoted. With so many people questioning the actual running speed of the game, we just had to get a once-and-for-all official answer from EA...and we got one today. It was about as clear and straightforward as humanly possible, and it lays all rumors to rest-

"Madden will NOT be at 60 fps on PS3," said EA's Tyrone Miller.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean it'll be 30fps, but it probably will be. As we all know by now, NCAA Football 08 currently runs at 30fps, and it's widely believed the 360 version - and its 60fps speed - offers a better experience. We honestly hope the speed won't be such a big issue with the PS3 version of Madden NFL 08, but it looks like it might be.



now this may still not be a dealbreaker for me personally (yet), but it certainly isn't good news...

Just another case of lazy development and the need to have the game come out on all platforms at the same time.

It can't be any worse than 07 was on the PS3, buggy jerky POS.

Glad to be the bearer of bad news folks...
Fixed.

Just kidding (sort of). It's all good. :)

That's disappointing, especially since it's the only game I can buy to get my NFL fix. Hopefully it will run smoothly otherwise I will have to wait until next season. Honestly, 60 or 30fps, I could care less as long as it's fun.

final answer final schmanswer. Madden is Madden and EA is EA. bottomline, this wont make it sell any fewer copies for EA overall, so why should they care about anything but getting it out on time. I played 07 and through all the bugs and quirks I still got my fix. I just dont see why this continues to be a concern for anyone aside from those who actually have both sytems & the option of which version to purchase. (yes I know this is an AV SCIENCE forum, but still nothing constructive has come of previous discussions on this topic.)

As long as it's locked at 30, frame rate won't be too big an issue.

For the previous seven years, Madden has been a blind buy for me. However, after the debauchery that was '07, I'll be renting first. If those buttons aren't 100% "mappable," this game will be a no go.

I figured the change to the 360's control scheme was a product of the lazy, truncated port in '07. That button scheme is miserable.

There are only two things PS3 owners can do. The first is to buy the game and live with the 30fps or just boycott any game that is not equal to its 360 version. Im for the second choice, as long as we keep buying these crapy ports developers are going to keep making them. I personally dont like Madden games (much preffer 2k games) but i need my football fix so im picking up the 360 version.

It's nice to finally anticipate a game running at 60 FPS on the 360.

I never thought of Madden as being a twitch kind of game. The speed in which you can manipulate the players is actually kind of sluggish because of the momentum of players. I know NFL 2K was more of a quick response game that benefitted from 60 fps.

Regardless, though, the fact that the 360 version will run at 60fps and not the ps3 version is inexcusable.

YAAAWWWNNNNNNNN

This is EA people.

I did find it amusing when MS was actually trying to use the 60FPS Madden as a selling point for it's conference.

Thats when you know your conference sucked.

What is the fps for the Wii's version of Madden 08? Thats the version I'd be playing anyway. Its more interesting even with lesser graphics.

lazy devs

Yeah, it's always the devs fault. There couldn't possibly be any technical reason behind things like this. :rolleyes:

It can't be any worse than 07 was on the PS3, buggy jerky POS.


what was wrong with the ps3 version of madden 07? it was (very) late, but otherwise was the same game as the 360 version...

what was wrong with the ps3 version of madden 07? it was (very) late, but otherwise was the same game as the 360 version...

according to the IGN review they actually improved quite a few things for the 07 version. A shame 08 is only 30fps, if it is locked solid then that would be ok, but still 60fps is my preference for games (not a football fan since the Genesis Joe Montana :D )

"or just boycott any game that is not equal to its 360 version"

Im all for it! It should be equal or better, no shorts, no excuses.

Yeah, it's always the devs fault. There couldn't possibly be any technical reason behind things like this. :rolleyes:

Yep. Devs too lazy to figure out how to use the technology given to them. How's that for a technical reason? 2K is also responsible. Good thing that All Pro Football 2K8 kicks ass. Madden, doesn't look like it so much.

30 fps is killing it for me. NCAA 08 is so un-responsive. Just please let Madden run smooth. EA is messing up real bad.

Also, I love football like it was my wife. I played it my whole life and football video games since Sport Talk Football was on the Genesis when I was like 6 or 7. I've been playing Madden since it hit the 16-Bit consoles and I have never been disappointed like this. NCAA 08 is not worth a full purchase because it's half made game. It's good, but it could have been great if the controls and framerate was better. I have a Gamefly account so its worth $20. Looks like I will do the same for Madden.

Shoot, the even left the historically black colleges off. Man I miss playing UAPB vs Jackson State or Grambling vs Southern

30 fps is killing it for me. NCAA 08 is so un-responsive. Just please let Madden run smooth. EA is messing up real bad.

Also, I love football like it was my wife. I played it my whole life and football video games since Sport Talk Football was on the Genesis when I was like 6 or 7. I've been playing Madden since it hit the 16-Bit consoles and I have never been disappointed like this. NCAA 08 is not worth a full purchase because it's half made game. It's good, but it could have been great if the controls and framerate was better. I have a Gamefly account so its worth $20. Looks like I will do the same for Madden.

Shoot, the even left the historically black colleges off. Man I miss playing UAPB vs Jackson State or Grambling vs Southern

Ugh, NCAA feels clunky and unresponsive on the 360 too, trust me I have it. Its not all about frame rates, NCAA has been letting me down for the last couple years. Trust me, having a better framerate on the 360 is nice, but it doesnt fix the controls and awful gameplay elements.

A 30 FPS game can be perfectly responsive, it just doesnt look quite as smoothe as 60 FPS. I am definitely a HUGE proponent of framerates, but the idea that high framerates alone can make a game play well is absurd.

Yeah, it's always the devs fault. There couldn't possibly be any technical reason behind things like this. :rolleyes:

Oh, clearly, if Sigma or Resistance can run at 60 FPS, Madden should too.

according to the IGN review they actually improved quite a few things for the 07 version. A shame 08 is only 30fps, if it is locked solid then that would be ok, but still 60fps is my preference for games (not a football fan since the Genesis Joe Montana :D )

There were stuttering problems with the graphics, especially the fly-ins between the different screens.

Having played 06 on the PC and 07 on friends' 360s it was unacceptable, and this (imho) was due to it being nothing more than a rushed port. I returned it after one evening.

Ugh, NCAA feels clunky and unresponsive on the 360 too, trust me I have it. Its not all about frame rates, NCAA has been letting me down for the last couple years. Trust me, having a better framerate on the 360 is nice, but it doesnt fix the controls and awful gameplay elements.

A 30 FPS game can be perfectly responsive, it just doesnt look quite as smoothe as 60 FPS. I am definitely a HUGE proponent of framerates, but the idea that high framerates alone can make a game play well is absurd.

Agreed that it isn't all about framerates. APF 2K8 is locked at 30 fps on the PS3 with a few stutters here and there during cutscenes (I have yet to experience a drop during actual gameplay) and it feels awesome. The pacing of that game is great. Slower than a Madden (at least the Madden I remember) but it feels right...like real football. I've never been so immersed in a football game in my life. It may not be the prettiest in some spots, but it is an awesome time.

"Oh, clearly, if Sigma or Resistance can run at 60 FPS, Madden should too"

That pretty much leaves them with no excuses! Resistence has alot going happening on the screen in many occasions too.

Its at 30fps because Peter Moore wants it that way. It was a deal he cut with Microsoft before leaving for EA to get the killer severence package. :cool:

Oh, clearly, if Sigma or Resistance can run at 60 FPS, Madden should too.
So why doesn't it?

The answer is really simple. Most devs nowadays build games that take better advantage of the video hardware than the CPU. It's been that way in the PC world for years. It allows for better visuals, and leaves CPU resources for other things. Although the Cell is probably better than the Xenon, the RSX is weaker than the Xenos. There are things the Xenos can do the RSX cannot, and the Xenos uses a unified shader architecture, whereas the RSX being based on the Nvidia's previous gen tech, does not.

You make a game that is written to take advantage of the video hardware, it's not simple to simply rewrite it to take advantage of the Cell... It's possible EA devs used calls in the code that only the video hardware can process, making it moot to try and have the cell do it. We don't know. But obviously, there's a technical reason, or else it would be running at 60FPS. And EA is a corporation- they're not going to step on Sony's toes and come out and say, "The RSX isn't capable, and we don't want to spend the extra dev costs on workarounds."

NGS and Resistance were built from the ground up for PS3. They were made to take advantage of the Cell. And Resistance, uses LOD and the such to acheive steady framerates. Also, Resistance didn't use HDR, and NGS didn't use AA. When you drop either, you pick up frames in the process.

I just think it's silly to always scream "LAZY DEVS!!" or things like this. These guys work extremely hard on tight timetables to release these games. It takes an incredible amount of time and money to get a game out. And with a game like Madden, EA can't just let the PS3 version sit out of the dev cycle indefinitely until they can discover enough workwrounds to get it on par with a finished 360 version.

So why doesn't it?

The answer is really simple. Most devs nowadays build games that take better advantage of the video hardware than the CPU. It's been that way in the PC world for years. It allows for better visuals, and leaves CPU resources for other things. Although the Cell is probably better than the Xenon, the RSX is weaker than the Xenos. There are things the Xenos can do the RSX cannot, and the Xenos uses a unified shader architecture, whereas the RSX being based on the Nvidia's previous gen tech, does not.

You make a game that is written to take advantage of the video hardware, it's not simple to simply rewrite it to take advantage of the Cell... It's possible EA devs used calls in the code that only the video hardware can process, making it moot to try and have the cell do it. We don't know. But obviously, there's a technical reason, or else it would be running at 60FPS. And EA is a corporation- they're not going to step on Sony's toes and come out and say, "The RSX isn't capable, and we don't want to spend the extra dev costs on workarounds."

NGS and Resistance were built from the ground up for PS3. They were made to take advantage of the Cell. And Resistance, uses LOD and the such to acheive steady framerates. Also, Resistance didn't use HDR, and NGS didn't use AA. When you drop either, you pick up frames in the process.

I just think it's silly to always scream "LAZY DEVS!!" or things like this. These guys work extremely hard on tight timetables to release these games. It takes an incredible amount of time and money to get a game out. And with a game like Madden, EA can't just let the PS3 version sit out of the dev cycle indefinitely until they can discover enough workwrounds to get it on par with a finished 360 version.

There is a lot of truth to what you say. Nevertheless, there is a precedent to suggest that a game can be properly developed (or ported: see Oblivion) to take advantage of the cell. I agree with you that its not just "lazy developers", but its also not a hardware limitation. I would put a lot of money on next years Madden running perfectly well on the PS3.

In addition, we can't completely rule out the possibility that this was a purposeful move by EA (even if it was a convenient one due to porting difficulties). I've never seen framerate differences actually boasted during a press conference like MS did. Ultimately, evenone likes to point fingers and make guesses, but none of us really know why EA didn't deliver 100% for the PS3 this year. It may have simply been that they crunched some numbers and decided that they would sell more on the 360 this year, so thats where they put their resources.

You make a game that is written to take advantage of the video hardware, it's not simple to simply rewrite it to take advantage of the Cell...

You can dice it and slice it any way you like, the point remains: It's possible, but they decided it was not in their best interest to invest the effort and time.

As a gamer, I don't care about how hard it is to do. If I pay $60 for a PS3 game, I expect as much value as when I pay $60 for a 360 game.

If publishers/developers decide it is not in their best interest to invest the effort and time to do it right on all shipping platforms, they should adjust the retail price accordingly.

There is a lot of truth to what you say. Nevertheless, there is a precedent to suggest that a game can be properly developed (or ported: see Oblivion) to take advantage of the cell. I agree with you that its not just "lazy developers", but its also not a hardware limitation. I would put a lot of money on next years Madden running perfectly well on the PS3.


Well, EA has a history of developing the base code for their multiplatform games on the platform with the largest install base. The base code is probably C#/C++ on Microsoft's XNA platform. It's likely an issue of, certain things that worked in XNA don't on the PS3. A workaround would have to be devised, and time/money wouldn't allow for that.

As for Oblivion, the fact that they didn't use AA on the PS3 version freed up resources to do other things. It wasn't so much that it was optimized for the Cell. Devs are using tradeoffs in a lot of ports and Mulitplatform titles to get desired results. I think to truly optimize for cell, you have to write it from the ground up for the cell. 3rd companies aren't going to do that as it would cripple multiplatform development more than the current solution.

I also don't think devs expected problems like this to arrive. In all the previous gens, it was no problem having a multiplatform game run better on the newer/better tech. That doesn't seem to be the case this gen.

You can dice it and slice it any way you like, the point remains: It's possible, but they decided it was not in their best interest to invest the effort and time.

As a gamer, I don't care about how hard it is to do. If I pay $60 for a PS3 game, I expect as much value as when I pay $60 for a 360 game.

If publishers/developers decide it is not in their best interest to invest the effort and time to do it right on all shipping platforms, they should adjust the retail price accordingly.
But you know that's not how it works. Price is determined by what the masses are willing to pay. People would buy Madden if it was stick figures on the field. For many, 30FPS is good enough. The difference will be that Tournament play will probably be the 360 version for this year, and maybe now on.

Well, EA has a history of developing the base code for their multiplatform games on the platform with the largest install base. The base code is probably C#/C++ on Microsoft's XNA platform. It's likely an issue of, certain things that worked in XNA don't on the PS3. A workaround would have to be devised, and time/money wouldn't allow for that.

As for Oblivion, the fact that they didn't use AA on the PS3 version freed up resources to do other things. It wasn't so much that it was optimized for the Cell. Devs are using tradeoffs in a lot of ports and Mulitplatform titles to get desired results. I think to truly optimize for cell, you have to write it from the ground up for the cell. 3rd companies aren't going to do that as it would cripple multiplatform development more than the current solution.

I also don't think devs expected problems like this to arrive. In all the previous gens, it was no problem having a multiplatform game run better on the newer/better tech. That doesn't seem to be the case this gen.

I'm not really sure what you are talking about w/ antialiasing on the PS3 version of Oblivion, the PS3 version looks superior to the 360 version to me in every way, and I have played both, a lot. I think that you are making a lot of assumptions that none of us know. None of us know how many tradeoffs have to be made. None of us know how much time and money is required to port correctly to the PS3. We know that some developers have done it better than others. We know that some developers have complained about it and others have said that it isn't a big deal. In a recent interview, the developers of COD4 were asked if they would attain 60fps per second, in response they said that 60fps was a minimum and that they would not accept less on either console.

COD4 is considered by many to be the highest lvl of gameplay and graphics attainable on consoles right now. Apparently BOTH the gameplay videos on the PS3 and 360 look fantastic and run perfectly. I'm not gonna call EAs developers lazy, because obviously different games run on differnent engines and have different challenges. Nevertheless, obviously 3rd party developers CAN do it right on both consoles this generation.

But you know that's not how it works. Price is determined by what the masses are willing to pay. People would buy Madden if it was stick figures on the field. For many, 30FPS is good enough. The difference will be that Tournament play will probably be the 360 version for this year, and maybe now on.

It surely happens that way most of the time, but it's not a law written in the sky and habit does not make it right.

In summary, it could be done, they decided it was not in their best interest, yet they ask as much money for the version they invested less in.

I just think it's silly to always scream "LAZY DEVS!!" or things like this. These guys work extremely hard on tight timetables to release these games. It takes an incredible amount of time and money to get a game out. And with a game like Madden, EA can't just let the PS3 version sit out of the dev cycle indefinitely until they can discover enough workwrounds to get it on par with a finished 360 version.

I agree, the anger is misplaced. The quote should be "CRAPPY/CHEAP COMPANY." Although I don't know EA's business directly, I have some friends who have worked for them and let's just say they didn't have good things to say. Everything I've heard about them is all they care about is $, period. Quality comes 2nd to $, and they've been riding the laurels of the madden franchise now for a couple years. The problem with next-gen Madden games is EA, not the devs. EA is a business, and is treating it as such. They're doing the least amount of work possible(spending as little $ as possible on dev), to churn something "new" out, and make $. Sadly, it comes down to business, and this should be no surprise to many people.

I'll take a stab in the dark, but I'm guessing there are many different issues w/ the new next gen versions of madden. #1, completely different architectures definetly makes it harder to code for (X360 is multi-core which is much more difficult, ps3 is multi-core and the diff cores aren't identical). #2, EA had to write a new next-gen game engine and it's probably not up to snuff and needs alot of work. The previous engine for the ps2/xbox has been refined over the years so it has much more polished gameplay, etc. vs. the next gen engine. Now, EA could spend more $ up front and actually make the new engine alot better (which would require more $), but they could just prefer to push it off to next yr and amortize the cost over many years (all along claiming "upgrades" to gameplay). How much polishing the game engine would cost is pure speculation, and I don't think anyone can really speak on that (unless you know firsthand). The argument can be made though that a comparable product to old-gen madden versions should be delivered for next gen games, and EA should eat the costs to deliver that. But, again, it seems like the business has specific budgets to hit and they're planning the same lemmings will buy it regardless of the quality. #3, EA's gotten lazy/cheap (not the devs). They're a business and have started to ride the gravy train. The success of the previous versions have caused them to sit back and just collect $ rather than actually trying to make a good game.

I laugh reading this as this was my frustration when the PS2 and the Xbox were the "next gen" consoles. The Xbox version always got the shaft when it came to multi-platform games, like Madden. Tables are turned now, and the PS3 is getting the cold shoulder. Someday we'll all be happy. Some day. :)

I think Sony is partially to blame in all of this. The ps1 was a very easy system to develop for. On the other hand, the ps2 and now the ps3 are very difficult.

Why does Sony insist on making a system that gives developers nightmares? Is it just arrogance? I mean, the xbox showed that just because a system is easy to develop for, doesn't mean it's not powerful.

My prediction for the ps4: Sony finally swallows it's pride and makes a system that is not only very powerful, buy developer friendly as well. The fact that Ken Kutaragi is gone won't hurt either.

Sure, it's POSSIBLE to make a game run well on the ps3, but apparently it takes a lot more effort than doing the same thing on the 360.

I guess we'll soon find out how games made for the ps3 first, then ported over to the 360 turn out. I have a funny feeling the transition will go a lot smoother.

I forgot to mention that I agree with a lot of you on the budget issue. That nfl license thing has pretty much destroyed Madden. The day EA signed that deal with the nfl, madden has never been the same. So now the ports are even worse than the original product as well.

Just look at what has happened in baseball with the 2k sports exclusitivity deal. Same thing.

Isn't it ironic. Sports are all about getting better and better because of your competition, yet the games that are trying to bring them to life have no one to push them to improve.

I think Sony is partially to blame in all of this. The ps1 was a very easy system to develop for. On the other hand, the ps2 and now the ps3 are very difficult.

Why does Sony insist on making a system that gives developers nightmares? Is it just arrogance? I mean, the xbox showed that just because a system is easy to develop for, doesn't mean it's not powerful.

My prediction for the ps4: Sony finally swallows it's pride and makes a system that is not only very powerful, buy developer friendly as well. The fact that Ken Kutaragi is gone won't hurt either.

Sure, it's POSSIBLE to make a game run well on the ps3, but apparently it takes a lot more effort than doing the same thing on the 360.

I guess we'll soon find out how games made for the ps3 first, then ported over to the 360 turn out. I have a funny feeling the transition will go a lot smoother.Well sony actually made steps with the PS3. It uses a well known GPU and the OpenGL API.

I honestly think that the PS4 will use an updated form of the Cell processor, probably more PPUs/SPUs and faster clock speeds. At that point the learning curve should not be so steep for that type of CPU.

Who knows though, perhaps raytracing will come in to play for graphics at that point.

The thing I don't get is Sony has these fancy names for it's hardware like "emotion engine" and now "cell processor", but thus far, the final result doesn't seem much better than sticking to standard pc parts, like Microsoft and Nintendo have done (and the Dreamcast before them). These are the components that most developers are very familiar with. Just stick to it. Why reinvent the wheel?

It's just part of Sony's thinking that they are better than everyone, so it would be below them to put pc components into their system. "You guys have generic cpu's and video cards. We have the almighty emotion engine, and the invincable cell processor! Woooohahahahaha! Bow to me now, you hardware weaklings!"

sony to blame. the ps1 was easy to program for? looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

that is the funniest quote ever. the playstation was maybe after the sega saturn the hardest console to program for. everything is pure assembly.

about the PS3. anti anilising is now fixed. with the new edge tools. it using 50% less cpu power or gpu power then standard FSAA. if i am not mistaken.

about madden itself. here is how it works.

i know 1 guy who work at the madden team. and let me explain what he tells me.

managment. everything is done and decided by managment.

I am not a madden fan, but more football fan. but dont worry guys we get shafted too. i bought teh xbox360 version of Pro evolution soccer on xbox360 and it was terrible! the PS2 version was so much better that i still play that.

so KOnami does the same to xbox360 users as EA does to PS3 users.

just know that the PS3 itself can not be blamed for that. if MAdden would be made exclusive for PS3 you would have better physics, better lightning and more realistic characters models, but since Management decides that XBOX360 is leading platform dont expect that Madden will be better on PS3.

the only game as far as i know this year that EA produces where the PS3 version will be better then the xbox360 version will be Criterions Burnout.

Well I am not picking this title up in August unless it gets a lot of praise from users because after Madden '07 I really have no interest and that's sad because these used to be my favorite games...I love football.

You want improved sports games? introduce another studio to make games giving EA competition. I know EA has exclusive rights meaning they can be "lazy".

But you know that's not how it works. Price is determined by what the masses are willing to pay. People would buy Madden if it was stick figures on the field. For many, 30FPS is good enough. The difference will be that Tournament play will probably be the 360 version for this year, and maybe now on.


30fps is good enough for people who dont know the difference... if they see a side by side comparison it can be a problem.

playing 360 ncaa and and ps3...... the 360 was a no brainer.... i dont think you can blame EA so much... i dont think Sony knows what its machine is capable of

Well, maybe next year then. I'm not making another $60 mistake.

30fps is good enough for people who dont know the difference... if they see a side by side comparison it can be a problem.

playing 360 ncaa and and ps3...... the 360 was a no brainer.... i dont think you can blame EA so much... i dont think Sony knows what its machine is capable of

I have never seen a side by side comparison. All I know is that NCAA 08 looks great and is a pretty good overall game, but the stutturing framerates and un-responsive controls is a deal breaker. Football is a split decision, instinctive sport and games should be designed that way - period. As, IGN says - don't release if its not ready, wait the extra months to get it right. There are now way too many PS3 consoles in homes for EA not to put in the effort.

They better get NBA Live 08 right, because NBA 2k8 will again be off the chain on the PS3.

It's nice to finally anticipate a game running at 60 FPS on the 360.

yeah it was nice back when forza 2 came out.

Its at 30fps because Peter Moore wants it that way. It was a deal he cut with Microsoft before leaving for EA to get the killer severence package. :cool:

you don't get a severance package for quitting.

Oh, clearly, if Sigma or Resistance can run at 60 FPS, Madden should too.

I dont see how ppl can conclude this. They are different games. Plus I'd think that football AI for 21 players is more CPU intensive than shoot and slash AI.

you don't get a severance package for quitting.

Keep thinking that. We're not talking McDonalds here.

if it's not hard locked at 30fps or if the buttons aren't mappable, it's not worth my $60.

I dont see how ppl can conclude this. They are different games. Plus I'd think that football AI for 21 players is more CPU intensive than shoot and slash AI.
Regardless, do you REALLY believe that the PS3 is incapable of displaying a football game @ 1080p/60??

I don't think we can blame the developers... I'd bet that the devs are tasked with developing for the 360 first since there are more 360 owners, and then "port" to the PS3.

As someone said, the xbox use to get short changed versus the ps2, prolly for the same reason.

Can anyone make a case for why EA should spend more time and money to fully develop a PS3 Madden game when their half hearted attempt will sell in large numbers anyway? I think EA will only change if 2k starts to sell in large numbers.

Regardless, do you REALLY believe that the PS3 is incapable of displaying a football game @ 1080p/60??

I guess it's possible. The real questions are, are the devs given the time and resources allowed to make this happen and is it cost effective to do this for a game that's going to sell out anyway.

They better have Madden and Michaels in the game or I'm not buying. I can't stand the crappy radio announcer guy.

The thing I don't get is Sony has these fancy names for it's hardware like "emotion engine" and now "cell processor", but thus far, the final result doesn't seem much better than sticking to standard pc parts, like Microsoft and Nintendo have done (and the Dreamcast before them). These are the components that most developers are very familiar with. Just stick to it. Why reinvent the wheel?

It's just part of Sony's thinking that they are better than everyone, so it would be below them to put pc components into their system. "You guys have generic cpu's and video cards. We have the almighty emotion engine, and the invincable cell processor! Woooohahahahaha! Bow to me now, you hardware weaklings!"

It places the emotion engine in the basket.

I guess it's possible. The real questions are, are the devs given the time and resources allowed to make this happen and is it cost effective to do this for a game that's going to sell out anyway.
Of course it's possible. The burden lies with EA to produce the best game possible, which is in their best interests. If they're all about the $$, as many claim, then they'll want to create identically good games on each and every system and sell as many copies as humanly possible.

Even if shortchanging us with low-quality ports doesn't produce a huge difference in sales, it is never good business to over-promise and under-deliver to consumers. Eventually, if they keep it up, it'll come back to bite'em.

They better have Madden and Michaels in the game or I'm not buying. I can't stand the crappy radio announcer guy.
I guess you're not buying then.

I just picked up my PS3 last week. I love Madden games (and all sports games) so this news upsets me a little but I doubt this will make the game unplayable. Infact, I probably won't see anything wrong with the game when I play, except that they'll probably over-rate Rex Grossman and under-rate Cedric Benson. I'm going to get Madden for the PS3 regardless!

Of course it's possible. The burden lies with EA to produce the best game possible, which is in their best interests. If they're all about the $$, as many claim, then they'll want to create identically good games on each and every system and sell as many copies as humanly possible.

Even if shortchanging us with low-quality ports doesn't produce a huge difference in sales, it is never good business to over-promise and under-deliver to consumers. Eventually, if they keep it up, it'll come back to bite'em.

It always does, in any industry. Consumers voices speak loud. Some of yall should check the EA Sport forums regarding Madden and NCAA 08. They have multiple thread with 100s of posts each talking about every individual flaw in the game. I'm pretty sure EA is reading them.

The thing I don't get is Sony has these fancy names for it's hardware like "emotion engine" and now "cell processor", but thus far, the final result doesn't seem much better than sticking to standard pc parts, like Microsoft and Nintendo have done (and the Dreamcast before them). These are the components that most developers are very familiar with. Just stick to it. Why reinvent the wheel?

It's just part of Sony's thinking that they are better than everyone, so it would be below them to put pc components into their system. "You guys have generic cpu's and video cards. We have the almighty emotion engine, and the invincable cell processor! Woooohahahahaha! Bow to me now, you hardware weaklings!"


Specialized hardware is a good thing for multimedia applications.

If the ps3 version ran at 60 and the 360 ran at 330, don't you think Sony would promote that? I'm getting the 360 version because most of my friends have 360's. The frame rate is a bonus. This year, it sounds like they've made some big improvements.

I do love that you can have the online game stats emailed to you. Cool.



YAAAWWWNNNNNNNN

This is EA people.

I did find it amusing when MS was actually trying to use the 60FPS Madden as a selling point for it's conference.

Thats when you know your conference sucked.

[QUOTE=johnsmith808] That nfl license thing has pretty much destroyed Madden. The day EA signed that deal with the nfl, madden has never been the same.QUOTE]

This is the key issue. EA has no direct competition so you figure it out...

As for the capabilities of the PS3 just remember there is a Sony 1st party sports game that run 60fps @ 1080p.

I am sure EA management considers the "exclusive rights" buyout as part of their operating costs. The check they wrote to the NFL was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you keep buying the game, why would the EA big wigs change their strategy? There is no direct competition. It is each gamer's decision whether or not they want to support this situation with their hard earned dollars.

I'm not really sure what you are talking about w/ antialiasing on the PS3 version of Oblivion, the PS3 version looks superior to the 360 version to me in every way, and I have played both, a lot.
The PS3 version of Oblivion doesn't use AA. The RSX cannot do HDR and AA simultaneously (there is a simulated version of HDR the Ninja Theory team uses, though). Oblivion uses HDR, bur not AA. AA can be a noticable performance hit, and not using it frees up a ton of resources. 4xAA@720p requires roughly 30MB out of the frame buffer. Take away AA, and you've got a lot more to work with to make other improvements. It's as simple as that. Same thing with FNR3. The PS3 version had more detailed player models, but had worse lighting (no HDR) and paper cut-out crowds. Obviously, tradeoffs.

CoD4 is a good example, though, I don't like to compare FPS's to sports games. Shooters can get away with cheating easier than sports games to get steady framerates.

Keep thinking that. We're not talking McDonalds here.

Any bonuses that Peter Moore is getting, he is getting from EA, not MS. In fact, EA already filed the bonuses. It is a matter of public record now. There was a post on Kotaku about it.

... I don't like to compare FPS's to sports games. Shooters can get away with cheating easier than sports games to get steady framerates.

I think this too. Do you know of technical reasons that explain this?

I think this too. Do you know of technical reasons that explain this?
Well, for one, shooter's commonly use Level of Detail. I can't think of a single sports game that uses it (at least, to the extent that a shooter does. Racing games probably do). Simply put, in Resistance or Gears, the enemies further away are less detailed and use less animation frames than the ones closer to you. Many shooters will also not render certain effects off-screen, or not display specular effects in shadow. There are many techniques devs use in shooters to keep the frames up.

Also, I would bet that football games have more complex A.I. than shooters, and the physics are just as complex as well.

In a football game, you've got 22 animated guys on field, all rendered with the same detail. Add in the models on the sidelines (though they're usually less detailed than the on-field guys), and the crowd, and you've got a lot going on.

FPS to a Football game is an apple to oranges comparison, IMO. A better one would be APF2K8 and Madden. I haven't seen the PS3 version of APF, but I assume it runs at 60FPS?

I think it was just a case of EA didn't have the time to make 60FPS happen on the PS3.

Also, earlier someone made the statement that the PS1 was also difficult to program for... I dunno about that. One of the main seeling points to devs was that it was easy to work with. I remember Midway saying that the reason the PS1 version of Mortal Kombat 3 was so perfect was because it was the same exact code.

Well, for one, shooter's commonly use Level of Detail. I can't think of a single sports game that uses it (at least, to the extent that a shooter does. Racing games probably do). Simply put, in Resistance or Gears, the enemies further away are less detailed and use less animation frames than the ones closer to you. Many shooters will also not render certain effects off-screen, or not display specular effects in shadow. There are many techniques devs use in shooters to keep the frames up.

Also, I would bet that football games have more complex A.I. than shooters, and the physics are just as complex as well.

In a football game, you've got 22 animated guys on field, all rendered with the same detail. Add in the models on the sidelines (though they're usually less detailed than the on-field guys), and the crowd, and you've got a lot going on.

FPS to a Football game is an apple to oranges comparison, IMO. A better one would be APF2K8 and Madden. I haven't seen the PS3 version of APF, but I assume it runs at 60FPS?

I think it was just a case of EA didn't have the time to make 60FPS happen on the PS3.

Also, earlier someone made the statement that the PS1 was also difficult to program for... I dunno about that. One of the main seeling points to devs was that it was easy to work with. I remember Midway saying that the reason the PS1 version of Mortal Kombat 3 was so perfect was because it was the same exact code.

I'm not sure the PS1 was difficult to program, but the PS2 definitely was. Another 60fps cross-console game that was shown on the PS3 is burnout. I listened to the gamespot podcast on the train today and they said they had their team working on get 60fps on the PS3 for the 3 weeks before E3. This is another EA game, so obviously there is no conspiracy here w/ EA.

I think you make some good points about football games. It may be that the Madden team ran into some technical snafoos in trying to get the PS3 port. Nevertheless, based on the fact that other teams, with some work, have been able to make excellent ports, I think this is an issue that will be overcome and can be overcome.

FPS to a Football game is an apple to oranges comparison, IMO. A better one would be APF2K8 and Madden. I haven't seen the PS3 version of APF, but I assume it runs at 60FPS?


Nope, it runs at 30fps as well. To be honest, it still plays and runs great. But I think a big piece of that is because it is soooo much better than any Madden game I have played. There are some noticeable slowdowns during the cut-scenes that take place on the field when the close-up shots occur, but that's the only time I've seen it. The gameplay is smooth as butter and feels the same way online.

There are bigger problems with Madden from a gameplay perspective than to sit and worry about the framerate. I was a Madden fan for years because I didn't know any better. APF is my first 2K football game and I can't believe I walked so blindly for so long. The animations are better, the player models are better, and, most importantly, the gameplay is better.

I'm starting to sound like a shill for 2K, but I can assure you I am not. I just am extremely impressed with APF, even if some of it is still a bit rough around the edges. The experience more than makes up for some of its shortcomings.

There are bigger problems with Madden from a gameplay perspective than to sit and worry about the framerate.

QFT

Mortal Kombat 3 was written in assembly. the reason why mortal kombat 3 could be easily ported over from arcade to playstation 1 was because of the assembly code . so now you understand :)

and as most people know, assembly is tough.

about Madden, i can tell you what would be the difference on the PS3 and the Xbox360 versions if it would be programmed exclusive for PS3, since i also asked my friend that at the Madden Team. but since i cant prove the info is real, i keep that for myself, since everybody can type something over here and claim stuff.

Now you have to share.

Mortal Kombat 3 was written in assembly. the reason why mortal kombat 3 could be easily ported over from arcade to playstation 1 was because of the assembly code . so now you understand :)


That would only work if the arcade cabinet had the same CPU architecture as the PS1, which I'm fairly certain is not the case.

Assembly code is different on every different line of microprocessor. Porting assembly code between different microprocessors is a HUGE pain in the ass.

How many times are these stupid madden framerate threads going to get closed before people stop arguing about such an obviously pointless discussion? EA doesn't hold themselves to the same standards as other companies do because they know their licenses are what sell the sports titles. As the learning curve balances out, the framerate issue will disappear and we'll all be angry about some other stupid glitch that wasn't cost/time effective enough to get fixed before release. please stop the insanity.

The thing I don't get is Sony has these fancy names for it's hardware like "emotion engine" and now "cell processor", but thus far, the final result doesn't seem much better than sticking to standard pc parts, like Microsoft and Nintendo have done (and the Dreamcast before them). These are the components that most developers are very familiar with. Just stick to it. Why reinvent the wheel?

It's just part of Sony's thinking that they are better than everyone, so it would be below them to put pc components into their system. "You guys have generic cpu's and video cards. We have the almighty emotion engine, and the invincable cell processor! Woooohahahahaha! Bow to me now, you hardware weaklings!"Well, the Cell follows along with what Sony started on the PS/PS2. Point of fact the PS3 was intended to have two Cell processors one as the CPU and one to act as the GPU. Luckily that never came to frution.

On one hand I agree with what you are saying, but on the other what if taking these chances on new hardware leads to a better game experience. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Of course the reality is the the Cell processor is very good for multimedia applications and Sony is a multimedia company so look to see cell processors in future Sony products in some form or another.

The PS3 version of Oblivion doesn't use AA. The RSX cannot do HDR and AA simultaneously (there is a simulated version of HDR the Ninja Theory team uses, though). Oblivion uses HDR, bur not AA. AA can be a noticable performance hit, and not using it frees up a ton of resources. 4xAA@720p requires roughly 30MB out of the frame buffer. Take away AA, and you've got a lot more to work with to make other improvements. It's as simple as that. Same thing with FNR3. The PS3 version had more detailed player models, but had worse lighting (no HDR) and paper cut-out crowds. Obviously, tradeoffs.

CoD4 is a good example, though, I don't like to compare FPS's to sports games. Shooters can get away with cheating easier than sports games to get steady framerates.
It is my understanding the G70 can indeed do HDR and AA. There is more than one type of HDR. HL: Lost coast uses this other HDR and many considered it to be one of the best looking implementations of HDR.

tell me about it..

tell me about it..
??

Actually the G70 can indeed do HDR and AA. There is more than one type of HDR. In fact HL: Lost coast uses this other HDR and many considered it to be one of the best looking implementations of HDR.

Are you talking about integer based HDR? Integer based uses more resources, and is generally considered inefficient and inaccurate compared to hardware HDR (due to not allowing for overrange values). And while integer based looks okay, it pales in comparison to hardware/floating point HDR. As it stands, the G70 can not do AA and hardware HDR simultaneously.

Funny how this discussion happens every year. You get the same amount of people saying they are not getting this version because of (insert reason here) and yet each year the game is at the top of the sales chart even months after release and doing more then new release games in that period. I don't like that EA has the license exclusive but what do they need to change is sales continue to do the same each year?

Are you talking about integer based HDR? Integer based uses more resources, and is generally considered inefficient and inaccurate compared to hardware HDR (due to not allowing for overrange values). And while integer based looks okay, it pales in comparison to hardware/floating point HDR. As it stands, the G70 can not do AA and hardware HDR simultaneously.
True, but the point stands that many consider Lost Coast to have great looking HDR.

Yep. Devs too lazy to figure out how to use the technology given to them. How's that for a technical reason?
Your clueless on this one dude. I've developered software for a living and I can tell you its not the "lazy developers" that make the game run at 30fps. Its the fact that the game has to be out by a certain date...NO MATTER WHAT ! That means that they are takinga shortcut to meet the needs of the business.
This falls upon EA management for not planning this out better and hiring the resources to make it happen in a timely fashion. Poor managment at EA in general. Madden is a flagship game for the PS3 and it seems EA is not giving it the priority it deserves. Too bad for Sony it is really the only game in town...biggest mistake ever to let EA have exclusive rights on the NFL. Its now essentially a monopoly.

Your clueless on this one dude. I've developered software for a living and I can tell you its not the "lazy developers" that make the game run at 30fps. Its the fact that the game has to be out by a certain date...NO MATTER WHAT ! That means that they are takinga shortcut to meet the needs of the business.
This falls upon EA management for not planning this out better and hiring the resources to make it happen in a timely fashion. Poor managment at EA in general. Madden is a flagship game for the PS3 and it seems EA is not giving it the priority it deserves. Too bad for Sony it is really the only game in town...biggest mistake ever to let EA have exclusive rights on the NFL. Its now essentially a monopoly.
I thought developers ran the company?

;) Great post.

i really dont think it matters.......Madden blows @ 10fps or 100fps, who cares!

i really dont think it matters.......Madden blows @ 10fps or 100fps, who cares!

check the sales obviously alot regardless what is being said here :rolleyes:

Your clueless on this one dude. I've developered software for a living and I can tell you its not the "lazy developers" that make the game run at 30fps. Its the fact that the game has to be out by a certain date...NO MATTER WHAT ! That means that they are takinga shortcut to meet the needs of the business.
This falls upon EA management for not planning this out better and hiring the resources to make it happen in a timely fashion. Poor managment at EA in general. Madden is a flagship game for the PS3 and it seems EA is not giving it the priority it deserves. Too bad for Sony it is really the only game in town...biggest mistake ever to let EA have exclusive rights on the NFL. Its now essentially a monopoly.


And this is exactly what all the people arguing about crap like this don't get. Its all about BUSINESS! EA is a BUSINESS! They do these things because they know they a)have to have to have to make the deadline espeically with this game and b) they have the ONLY NFL LICENSE to make the game and because of that they don't have to worry about how the game runs compared to a competitor's version. Im sure there are developers who work for EA who clearly have the ability to make this game run however they want. What they DONT have is a pause button for time and a mute button for their bosses. Im tired of this thread, and all like it.
Seacrest out.

Your clueless on this one dude. I've developered software for a living and I can tell you its not the "lazy developers" that make the game run at 30fps. Its the fact that the game has to be out by a certain date...NO MATTER WHAT ! That means that they are takinga shortcut to meet the needs of the business.
This falls upon EA management for not planning this out better and hiring the resources to make it happen in a timely fashion. Poor managment at EA in general. Madden is a flagship game for the PS3 and it seems EA is not giving it the priority it deserves. Too bad for Sony it is really the only game in town...biggest mistake ever to let EA have exclusive rights on the NFL. Its now essentially a monopoly.

You're absolutely right. I wasn't meaning to refer to developers specifically, but EA as a whole company. I realize it was a blanket statement and could be misinterpreted. Please don't call me clueless...I'm far from it. The only thing I'm guilty of is generalizing. Back in the day, EA was a DEVELOPMENT company first. My apologies if you were offended by the post. It was not the intention. Name-calling, on the other hand, is uncalled for.

I'm starting to sound like a shill for 2K, but I can assure you I am not. I just am extremely impressed with APF, even if some of it is still a bit rough around the edges. The experience more than makes up for some of its shortcomings.

You may indeed be a shill for 2K :D but I agree that APF2K Plays better than any madden game I can remember. APF2K makes that NCAA 08 commercial look like a toy...

check the sales obviously alot regardless what is being said here :rolleyes:


look @ the gameplay BUDDY...if toyota were the only one making cars,what would the sales be..

either way people will buy it because they need it, many would say it blows because they haven't changed the car model that much... just a few more cupholders..lol... same OL' outdated engine

people need more options to fill more AMERICAN........

Of course the reality is the the Cell processor is very good for multimedia applications and Sony is a multimedia company so look to see cell processors in future Sony products in some form or another.

That's something I knew nothing about. I don't use the ps3 for multimedia, so I'm missing out on that aspect of the system. I didn't think Sony completely lost their minds.

I must admit, I know nothing about programming of games. All I can base my conclusions on are the final product and what I read developers are saying. With that in mind, why doesn't Sony just let amd (or is it ati now, or vice versa?) and intel take care of the processors. At least they've accepted the video card side of it. Maybe one day they'll stick to doing what they do best, and let the other guys do their thing.

Microsoft realizes it's limitations, and thus doesn't try to build their own custom hardware. They let the companies who have been doing that for ages build their custom hardware. Seems to be paying off for them. They went from being a new participant in the system wars, to being a very strong contender (or even leader) in just a little over a generation. Of course this is a result of more than just hardware, but the hardware didn't get in the way, either.

Sony, you make great displays and media players, but you just don't know how to make computer hardware! Hey, even Michael Jordan couldn't be good at everything, right?

That's not going to be popular in this forum. Take notice of where the blame has fallen over the past 3 pages, EA, Corporate Big Business, Lazy Developers, Greedy Execs, Unfair tight time tables, etc... Blaming Sony or questioning the capabilities of the hardware relative to the competition have historically not been taken too well (although it's not any more unreasonable than many of the other semi-crackpot theories thrown around). I'm going to make popcorn and get a soda.

sony to blame. the ps1 was easy to program for? looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

that is the funniest quote ever. the playstation was maybe after the sega saturn the hardest console to program for. everything is pure assembly.



I'm glad I made your day. I feel better knowing that I made someone laugh that much without even trying. :)

I was going off of the fact that the Saturn was very difficult to develop for. I didn't realize that the Playstation wasn't that great either. So that adds even more fuel to the fire that Sony has no clue how to put a video game system together that is developer friendly. I was trying to give them a break with the PS1, but apparently from the beginning, they've been stubborn about this.

At the end of the day, the Ps3's architecture may not hurt Sony, as developers will still make games on it if the profit is there. The ps3 owners on the other hand have already and may continue to receive the lesser version of multi-platform games. Thanks a lot Sony. Who needs 60 fps anyway (sour grapes)!

The only saving grace will be if Sony's first party stuff looks better than anything that the 360 could do. Still, I wouldn't attribute that difference to the Cell processor, as hardware one year newer is supposed to be more powerful anyway.

That's not going to be popular in this forum. Take notice of where the blame has fallen over the past 3 pages, EA, Corporate Big Business, Lazy Developers, Greedy Execs, Unfair tight time tables, etc... Blaming Sony or questioning the capabilities of the hardware relative to the competition have historically not been taken too well (although it's not any more unreasonable than many of the other semi-crackpot theories thrown around). I'm going to make popcorn and get a soda.

Wow! I feel like I just got busted!

Trust me, I have nothing against Sony, as I am a happy ps3 owner, but we're all trying to figure out what's going on here. If EA gave us a straight answer, we wouldn't have to be having this discussion. If we're trying to get to the bottom of this, why leave out Sony? Even if you like something, it doesn't mean you can't admit that it has it's faults. Sony obviously is very successful in the console market, but they are not infallible, and someone shouldn't be chastised for pointing out where they could improve. I'm going to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich and get a glass of milk. :)

Wow! I feel like I just got busted!

Trust me, I have nothing against Sony, as I am a happy ps3 owner, but we're all trying to figure out what's going on here. If EA gave us a straight answer, we wouldn't have to be having this discussion. If we're trying to get to the bottom of this, why leave out Sony? Even if you like something, it doesn't mean you can't admit that it has it's faults. Sony obviously is very successful in the console market, but they are not infallible, and someone shouldn't be chastised for pointing out where they could improve. I'm going to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich and get a glass of milk. :)

I'm not saying it isn't a logical thought or that an unbiased mind wouldn't raise that possibility (where is the limitation exactly, what can't the devs resolve and get by that is requiring so much additional effort to reach frame rate parity on the ultimate multiplatformer). What I'm saying is that there is a reason that no one went down that road even after 3 pages. That reason is that a high percentage of this forum can't handle a sales numbers or earnings discussion (and fewer still understand it) let alone questioning the actual hardware or "the creator".

Hence, my bet was for this thread to explode (although I may have quashed that some by preempting it) but it's a volatile enough forum that it should be entertaining nonetheless.

Who said Resistance runs at 60fps? It runs at 30fps.

As far as this frame rate issue is concerned, what bothers me is that it's a step back. Last generation, all of the Madden games (at least those that I played) ran at 60fps. There was some occasional slowdown on earlier versions, but from 2003 on it was constant. Even NFL2K on the Dreamcast in 1999 ran at 60fps, so to have it go back 8 years later is pathetic, HD or no HD.

I wouldn't mind it if we were talking about a shooter or adventure game, which tended to run at 30fps more often than 60fps last generation, but sports should still be 60fps. At the very least, I wish they could give us a 60fps mode that cuts down on texture quality/polygons (I could do without an animated crowd, for instance).

Nitpick about the OP: 60 vs. 30fps has nothing to do with game speed. It's not as if the game plays any faster at 60fps. 60fps just has to do with how fluid the motion looks and should not affect gameplay at all.

What I'm saying is that there is a reason that no one went down that road even after 3 pages.

Hence, my bet was for this thread to explode (although I may have quashed that some by preempting it) but it's a volatile enough forum that it should be entertaining nonetheless.

Um, did you notice post #35? Yah, that was mine, too. Not too much exploding went on after that one. But seriously, I understand what you're saying, and so far, everyone has been pretty level headed on this topic.

Maybe people who play Madden and own a ps3 and are interested in it's frame rate are more level headed than the average person, and are thus less flammable. :)

I dont see how ppl can conclude this. They are different games. Plus I'd think that football AI for 21 players is more CPU intensive than shoot and slash AI.

AI, right...extremely artificial intelligence

Figure this out...Ryu and 12 ninjas spinning around in a perfect choreography at 60 FPS...yet a slow paced football game can't hold 30 FPS...defending EA in this case is impossible.

And by the way, Sigma is a port from Xbox, just imagine what these guys could have achieved if they had started on the PS3.

I remember Madden 2001 (or around there). The graphics were incredible for it's time, but the framerate was horrible. In the practice fieldhouse, the game ran nice and smooth, but in a real stadium, things fell apart. The following year, EA simplified the graphics and the framerate was a solid 30.

I agree that a rock solid 30 fps is good, but just the fact that EA was able to get 60 fps out of the 360 is what makes us raise our eyebrows. Really makes you wonder why they just didn't release both locked at 30.

AI, right...extremely artificial intelligence

Figure this out...Ryu and 12 ninjas spinning around in a perfect choreography at 60 FPS...yet a slow paced football game can't hold 30 FPS...defending EA in this case is impossible.

And by the way, Sigma is a port from Xbox, just imagine what these guys could have achieved if they had started on the PS3.

You're comparing football AI for 22 players running routes, performing blocking assignments, passing, pass rushing, pass coverage, tackling, and chasing each other around to "swing a sword" AI for 12 ninjas in which all they have to do is move toward the player and swing a sword. :)

You're comparing football AI for 22 players running routes, performing blocking assignments, passing, pass rushing, pass coverage, tackling, and chasing each other around to "swing a sword" AI for 12 ninjas in which all they have to do is move toward the player and swing a sword. :)

It was a couple years ago, but I ran across a research article indicating that AI only takes approximately 10% of the processing in a console video game, with sound taking 15%, and graphics 75%.

Anyway, most of what your talking about is AI. If your having trouble getting framerate, its not because your AI is so complicated, it is because of the graphics. If you'd like I can find and link the article, but it might take a little while.

..

I agree that a rock solid 30 fps is good, but just the fact that EA was able to get 60 fps out of the 360 is what makes us raise our eyebrows. Really makes you wonder why they just didn't release both locked at 30.

That would be really stupid to restrict one machine based on other. Best is to get best out of each machine. I don't thnk EA is limiting framerate of ps3 in purpose which means Sony has not provided ea with enough support. PS3's advantage is multiple individual objets doing stuff; like football players. So in this case it's no the power of ps3 that limits fps ,it's lack of tallent or support. Isn't there other/better fooball games for ps3?

That's something I knew nothing about. I don't use the ps3 for multimedia, so I'm missing out on that aspect of the system. I didn't think Sony completely lost their minds.

I must admit, I know nothing about programming of games. All I can base my conclusions on are the final product and what I read developers are saying. With that in mind, why doesn't Sony just let amd (or is it ati now, or vice versa?) and intel take care of the processors. At least they've accepted the video card side of it. Maybe one day they'll stick to doing what they do best, and let the other guys do their thing.

Microsoft realizes it's limitations, and thus doesn't try to build their own custom hardware. They let the companies who have been doing that for ages build their custom hardware. Seems to be paying off for them. They went from being a new participant in the system wars, to being a very strong contender (or even leader) in just a little over a generation. Of course this is a result of more than just hardware, but the hardware didn't get in the way, either.

Sony, you make great displays and media players, but you just don't know how to make computer hardware! Hey, even Michael Jordan couldn't be good at everything, right?
Well, they have a different take on what CPUs should be or rather what type of performance they should excel at. They like their CPUs to be very powerful in floating point perfromance/graphics. This started with the PS when GPUs weren't common and this was seen again in the PS2. The EE was for general purpose, but also had two small coprocessors; vector 00 and vector 01 to do floating point calculations for graphics.

The Cell again has the general purpose PPU and the SPEs that are great for floating point calculations. Although this time Sony wised up and realized that a GPU is much better for graphics and doing floating point calculations. The Cell has some potential as we've seen and the SDKs are getting better. Sony is getting together with Epic to optimize UE3 for the PS3 and as you may know this is a very popular engine for 3rd party developers. I honestly think the "difficulty" programming for the PS3 will start to die down going in to 08.

Hats off to MS for making a platform that is very easy/intuitive to develop for though.

Isn't there other/better football games for ps3?

Actually, no, unless you're referring to what we call soccer. :)

EA has the exclusive license for the NFL (the big league for American football). The only other game is 2K Sports' All-Pro Football, which doesn't look as nice as Madden (at least from what I've seen in the commercials), and also runs at 30fps. Of course, that game won't sell nearly as well because it lacks the NFL license.

Of course, that game won't sell nearly as well because it lacks the NFL license.

Which is a shame, because it is fantastic, NFL license or not.

Actually, no, unless you're referring to what we call soccer. :)

EA has the exclusive license for the NFL (the big league for American football). The only other game is 2K Sports' All-Pro Football, which doesn't look as nice as Madden (at least from what I've seen in the commercials), and also runs at 30fps. Of course, that game won't sell nearly as well because it lacks the NFL license.it plays
better then madden and run very nice on ps3.i bet u madden will play like 06 and 07
madden have been the same for 10yr.

Actually, no, unless you're referring to what we call soccer. :)

I was trying to speak your language :)

PS: I'm more of a hockey fan(beacuse i am from Finland)

I honestly think the "difficulty" programming for the PS3 will start to die down going in to 08.



That makes sense. Once the ps2 got rolling, I didn't hear much about how difficult it was to program for (I guess the huge installed base kind of makes those things go away, too). I think we rather talk about how great games are instead of technical issues like this anyway.

Who said Resistance runs at 60fps? It runs at 30fps.


dralt has said 6 or 7 times in various threads that resistance runs at 60fps. he is wrong.

One other point is that ea has had more experience with the 360 and this will be the 3rd version. I think this is the 2nd ps3 release and the ps3 is still in its infancy. Next year they will probably be the same frame rate. I will always buy a copy that has the most amount of players online. I have madden07 in ps2, xbox, and 360. (Two were bought used, but still....I'm an idiot).

I love the emailed stats of the game. Cool feature.

dralt has said 6 or 7 times in various threads that resistance runs at 60fps. he is wrong.

Am I?
Based on what?

You're comparing football AI for 22 players running routes, performing blocking assignments, passing, pass rushing, pass coverage, tackling, and chasing each other around to "swing a sword" AI for 12 ninjas in which all they have to do is move toward the player and swing a sword. :)

Are you saying AI is 50% of the work in Madden?

Obviously, neither of us can speak to that with any credibility.

Am I?
Based on what?


eh, the articles are there. the interviews with the devs and whatnot. do a little basic research and you'll find the relevant info. i'm too lazy too look it up. it was 60fps at the e3 showing last year and they throttled it down to a locked in 30fps to augment particle effects and other things. final product is 30fps in single and multiplayer.

Whether Madden is 30 fps or 60 fps, the answer to the devs that PS3 owners wont take it lesser than other consoles is by not buying it. There, dont buy it if 30fps is bad for you.

eh, the articles are there. the interviews with the devs and whatnot. do a little basic research and you'll find the relevant info. i'm too lazy too look it up. it was 60fps at the e3 showing last year and they throttled it down to a locked in 30fps to augment particle effects and other things. final product is 30fps in single and multiplayer.
I remember that as well. They started having issues in the latter levels so they locked it at 30.

That's disappointing, especially since it's the only game I can buy to get my NFL fix. Hopefully it will run smoothly otherwise I will have to wait until next season. Honestly, 60 or 30fps, I could care less as long as it's fun.

^^im the same way, it doesn't matter to me either, just as long as it is fun.

I have no choice....the bastards at EA know that I will buy the game regardless of the lack of 60 fps.

As long as the framerate doesn't DROP and the game becomes slugglish online or intense situations,I could care less at the FPS it runs at.

The reason this is big is because it pretty much ensures that the tournament circuit will be running the 360 version.

Actually, no, unless you're referring to what we call soccer. :)

EA has the exclusive license for the NFL (the big league for American football). The only other game is 2K Sports' All-Pro Football, which doesn't look as nice as Madden (at least from what I've seen in the commercials), and also runs at 30fps. Of course, that game won't sell nearly as well because it lacks the NFL license.

Unfortunately. They should licence rights to at least 1 other developer to give them competition.

As long as the framerate doesn't DROP and the game becomes slugglish online or intense situations,I could care less at the FPS it runs at.

From a gameplay standpoint this will be true for most people. Halo 2 ran at 30fps, and not too many people complained that it didn't run at 60. But if there was a Halo 2 on the ps2 that ran at 60fps, then all the xbox owners would feel shafted. Everything is relative.

Good thing the PS3 plays Blu-ray movies!

the HTG section is starting to become GameFAQs...

the HTG section is starting to become GameFAQs...

More and more everyday. Sad, really.

Good thing the PS3 plays Blu-ray movies!
??

Yes, that always been a good thing about the PS3. I'm not sure I get your post, but hey we could use more people posting positives on the PS3 so keep it up.

??

Yes, that always been a good thing about the PS3. I'm not sure I get your post, but hey we could use more people posting positives on the PS3 so keep it up.

If there was no Blu-Ray player then his system would be collecting dust waiting on the games to come out.

If there was no Blu-Ray player then his system would be collecting dust waiting on the games to come out.
hmm odd I do both, but different strokes for different folks.

hmm odd I do both, but different strokes for different folks.

Not sure what the surprise is since it is stated daily. Folks are waiting on these games to come out. Reason why I am waiting to purchase a PS3 and the reason why some who do have a PS3 are complaining they only can watch movies becuase the games are not out yet that they want because of the "wait"

For those who feel that the ps3 is the only console in recent memory to suffer from game shortages during it's first year, please check page 4 and on of the thread "PS3 is about to awaken". Helps to put things into perspective.

Not sure what the surprise is since it is stated daily. Folks are waiting on these games to come out. Reason why I am waiting to purchase a PS3 and the reason why some who do have a PS3 are complaining they only can watch movies becuase the games are not out yet that they want because of the "wait"
"the wait"uh-huh....

More and more everyday. Sad, really.



http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10225684&&#post10225684


You are right (just read the whole thread to see why this post was made).

I'll go wherever more players are online. I have the 360 and ps3. I wonder if the ps2 might have more players online then both the 360 and the ps3? What tournament?

The reason this is big is because it pretty much ensures that the tournament circuit will be running the 360 version.

I'll go wherever more players are online. I have the 360 and ps3. I wonder if the ps2 might have more players online then both the 360 and the ps3? What tournament?


the tournament circuits almost universally moved to the 360 platform last year...

Hats off to MS for making a platform that is very easy/intuitive to develop for though.

I'm just wondering, if it's so much easier and intuitive to develop for, why weren't Madden and NCAA 60 fps on the 360 LAST year?

I'm just wondering, if it's so much easier and intuitive to develop for, why weren't Madden and NCAA 60 fps on the 360 LAST year?

Maybe after 2 years a console transforms from hard to easy to develop??? ;)

I'm just wondering, if it's so much easier and intuitive to develop for, why weren't Madden and NCAA 60 fps on the 360 LAST year?

A lot of the news have guessed its because EA actually has competition this year, so they made a half decent game.

A lot of the news have guessed its because EA actually has competition this year, so they made a half decent game.

And the competition is good. APF is a fantastic game. Though, I watched a few more videos of Madden last night (presumably on the 360) and I have to say that it is looking very good. I'm concerned about how it plays, though. Looks like the same drop back to the end zone and fire a bomb game play that we all know and hate from Madden, but I'll have to play it first (or read impressions) before that opinion is solidified.

What I think APF nailed so perfectly this year is the tempo of the game and how long it takes to actually throw a deep ball. I was playing last night with Cunningham as my QB and I got nailed as I was throwing a bomb. Still got the pass off, but the ball wobbled its way downfield. Some scrub receiver made a great one-handed catch and trotted off into the endzone for the win. It was one of the most intense moments I've had playing a football game in my 20+ years of gaming.

The other thing I really like about APF is how life-like the animations are. It truly does fool you sometimes into thinking you are watching a game. The way the kicker's head moves to the side to watch a FG try go through the uprights, the way the guys slide across the turf on a big hit, the sliding TD catches on both knees, the connection the players seem to have with the ground and how they interact with it and each other...it looks and feels real.

If Madden can pull off that kind of emotional reaction and realism with '08, I might have to change my tune and pick it up. If not, I'll keep living in the glory days of the old school NFL.

With that level of competition, maybe it means we'll see a demo this year just so EA can prove they are still "top dog." Not holding my breath, though. It's Madden. People will blindly buy it like they do every year, regardless of how it plays.

Maybe after 2 years a console transforms from hard to easy to develop??? ;)

Yeah, funny how that works. I hear hardware gets better after it ages a few years too.

It really does urk me that Sony can sit back and watch and/or allow EA to design an inferior product for their platform compared to the 360 for one of the best-selling franchise's of all-time. Madden alone has sold millions of units to loyal PS fans, it should at least be on par with the competition.

It really does urk me that Sony can sit back and watch and/or allow EA to design an inferior product for their platform compared to the 360 for one of the best-selling franchise's of all-time. Madden alone has sold millions of units to loyal PS fans, it should at least be on par with the competition.


EA has already answered as to why it is what it is what more do u want. But if you want them to bitch they need to bitch at the other developers of multiplatform games too while they are at it.

Oh wait, Jack Tretton stated this issue is being worked at E3 so hopefully things will get better for future multiplatform games

EA has already answered as to why it is what it is what more do u want. But if you want them to bitch they need to bitch at the other developers of multiplatform games too while they are at it.

Oh wait, Jack Tretton stated this issue is being worked at E3 so hopefully things will get better for future multiplatform games
I don't play sports games so I didn't really care, but what did EA have to say the reason was?

I know the Sony guys were very happey with Infinity Ward for their ability to have parity with CoD4.

I don't play sports games so I didn't really care, but what did EA have to say the reason was?

I know the Sony guys were very happey with Infinity Ward for their ability to have parity with CoD4.


Pretty much the same as most answers have been from developers. Moving from 360 to PS3 since the 36o is the lead platform.

IW stated since they already have had prior experience working on COD3 for the PS3 has helped them this go around with COD4. Things are running smoothly.

Pretty much the same as most answers have been from developers. Moving from 360 to PS3 since the 36o is the lead platform.

IW stated since they already have had prior experience working on COD3 for the PS3 has helped them this go around with COD4. Things are running smoothly.

Not to nitpick, mboojigga, but IW didn't have anything to do with the load of crap that was COD3. That was a Treyarch job. IW's had success working on COD4 because they actually starting porting COD2 as practice. Smart move if you ask me. Too bad all companies these days aren't that concerned about their product.

Pretty much the same as most answers have been from developers. Moving from 360 to PS3 since the 36o is the lead platform.

IW stated since they already have had prior experience working on COD3 for the PS3 has helped them this go around with COD4. Things are running smoothly.
No, Treyarch did CoD3. IW did start the process of porting CoD2 to the PS3 just get some experience with the PS3.

Although EA has already made several titles for the PS3, so if IW can do it after a practice port of CoD2 EA drops down that much further in my eyes.

One thing I would like in the new madden would be the ability to change coaches. I hated seeing Art Hell in last years game. I wanted so bad to change him to anything. Hell a stick figure would have made me happy.

It really does urk me that Sony can sit back and watch and/or allow EA to design an inferior product for their platform compared to the 360 for one of the best-selling franchise's of all-time. Madden alone has sold millions of units to loyal PS fans, it should at least be on par with the competition.

If Sony did something to game developers for releasing inferior products, there would be a long line in front of EA. Madden 08 for the ps3 might not be "as good as" the 360 version, but certainly it's no an inferior gaming experience to, for instance, Gundam.

No, Treyarch did CoD3. IW did start the process of porting CoD2 to the PS3 just get some experience with the PS3.

Although EA has already made several titles for the PS3, so if IW can do it after a practice port of CoD2 EA drops down that much further in my eyes.


Not sure what the hell I was thinking. The statement was along the lines that they had prior experience working on the PS3.

If Sony did something to game developers for releasing inferior products, there would be a long line in front of EA. Madden 08 for the ps3 might not be "as good as" the 360 version, but certainly it's no an inferior gaming experience to, for instance, Gundam.

Well we can use NCAA 2008 as a test-case and from the reviews I've read 60fps on the 360 looks significantly better than 30fps on the PS3. I would assume Madden wouldn't be much different.

Where can I find more info on the tournoments? Are they played split screen or on multiple moniters?

the tournament circuits almost universally moved to the 360 platform last year...

Phil Harrison on the 60fps issue, it's at the end;
http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/13584

Where can I find more info on the tournoments? Are they played split screen or on multiple moniters?

Madden does not need either; two players watch the same screen.

Phil Harrison on the 60fps issue, it's at the end;
http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/13584


lol that was awesome. phil harrison is freaking great. i agree with him completely...

Where can I find more info on the tournoments? Are they played split screen or on multiple moniters?


well i don't know about events local to you, but if/when you ever get good enough to take your show on the road, you can come to new jersey and get schooled...

www.njmaddenballers.com

errr...not sure what was so great about his answer seeing the he didn't give one and just got defensive...

errr...not sure what was so great about his answer seeing the he didn't give one and just got defensive...


What do you mean? I don't know if his answer is great or not. But he was clear. PS3 can do it. For proof he said look at first party titles. I would add look at 3rd party titles too. Only the developers in this case EA can tell you if there is anything specific on Madden that prevented them from doing it. Maybe there is something specific to EA's Madden maybe not .

errr...not sure what was so great about his answer seeing the he didn't give one and just got defensive...


he did give an answer. sony has a sports product on the market that runs at 1080p and 60fps. it's quite possible and the blame can be laid squarely at the foot of the developers (ea) for not making it happen. now, there are major technical differences between a basketball game and a football game, but the basic rationale holds true...

he did give an answer. sony has a sports product on the market that runs at 1080p and 60fps. it's quite possible and the blame can be laid squarely at the foot of the developers (ea) for not making it happen. now, there are major technical differences between a basketball game and a football game, but the basic rationale holds true...

Yeah, it doesn't seem to be as hard to get basketball at 60fps, as 2K Sports' NBA game also runs at 60fps (with occasional dips when more of the court is shown).

It's just a matter of them not knowing the hardware well enough. The first two Maddens for the 360 also ran at 30fps, so there is a precedent. I would be surprised if they don't get it right for next year.

he did give an answer. sony has a sports product on the market that runs at 1080p and 60fps.
That's not as valid a comparison as it seems.

What do you mean? I don't know if his answer is great or not. But he was clear. PS3 can do it. For proof he said look at first party titles. I would add look at 3rd party titles too. Only the developers in this case EA can tell you if there is anything specific on Madden that prevented them from doing it. Maybe there is something specific to EA's Madden maybe not .


No he said look at their sports game which by the way has never been that great on privous platforms, football or basketball.