Splinter Cell Producer Trashes PS3's AI Capabilities (http://kotaku.com/gaming/smack-talk/splinter-cell-producer-trashes-ps3s-ai-capabilities-288817.php)

Ubisoft: PS3 "Can't Handle AI As Well As 360" (http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/1686.html)


This seems a bit odd to me based on everything I understand... Anyone here able to decipher this?

I always see the video RAM comparison, but isn't the truth that both systems have the same amount of available RAM and it is just more complex to access on the PS3 due to its not-traditional PC-like structure?

And for AI processing, I would think that is all software programming... But to me it just seems an odd statement to say that the PS3 wouldn't be able to process as well as the 360 given the capabilities of the cell.

Each of these articles appear to be skeptical too and are looking for more developer expertise on the subject... Anyone here have anything the can add?

He's working on a 360 exclusive, what else is he going to say? It's BS, just ask any PS3 exclusive dev like Team Ninja.

Why do these types of topics have to be posted here? All it does is incite all kinds of nastiness and clogging of the boards. I understand that it is frustrating to see this stuff being spread online, but all it is is flame-bait, and it works every single time. I, for one, am tired of seeing it on AVS. I'm sure others relish in it, but I would hope they are in the minority here.

He's working on a 360 exclusive, what else is he going to say? It's BS, just ask any PS3 exclusive dev like Team Ninja.

Exactly. Not to mention, if he isn't working with the PS3, how does he even know? The truth is he doesn't, but the comment served its purpose because we're talking about his game.

Why do these types of topics have to be posted here? All it does is incite all kinds of nastiness and clogging of the boards. I understand that it is frustrating to see this stuff being spread online, but all it is is flame-bait, and it works every single time. I, for one, am tired of seeing it on AVS. I'm sure others relish in it, but I would hope they are in the minority here.

Because it is "out there"... This stuff gets picked up on ALL the news feeds and often goes un-rebutted anywhere.

I come here because there seems to be a higher percentage of people posting that know much more about these types of technical issues than I do.

I don't think this community should ignore stuff like this, those of you who can shed light on why we see so much of this type of thing in the mainstream gaming media can obviously help balance it... And I have seen AVS posters quoted in articles before... and that's a good thing.

(And yeah... I was thinking the same thing about a 360 exclusive developer making statements about the PS3 which he isn't even working on... It isn't like they tried to make it work for the PS3 and ran into issues... He's just making a blatant statement that doesn't appear supportable.)

There's a corporate war going on and people are picking sides.

oh God, get over it! People are going to make PS3 +/- comments. Doesn't mean they're out to get your first borns. Seriously, this is an entertainment device, not your life. The PS3 will have good games and bad games throughout it's life cycle, like any other consoles. Enjoy the good ones.

That headline is way overblown just to get this sort of a reaction. Now the PS3 fanboys will cry and the 360 fanboys will run with it and rub it in.

Then next week, the roles will be reversed for another game. Rinse and repeat......

You could more accurately translate the article from:

"It’s NEVER gonna come out on the PS3 or the Wii," he said. "It’s a logical decision. Nintendo’s console simply doesn’t have the graphical horsepower, and...the PS3 can’t handle AI nearly as well as the 360."

TO:

"It’s NEVER gonna come out on the PS3 or the Wii," he said. "It’s a logical decision. Nintendo’s console simply doesn’t have the graphical horsepower, and...the code we've written won't transition to the PlayStation3's unique architecture without substantial re-engineering".

Basically, they've built a 360 specific game and making it work on the PS3's architecture would be time prohibitive.

Why they had to be so sensationalist about it is beyond me.

You could more accurately translate the article [to]:

"It’s NEVER gonna come out on the PS3 or the Wii," he said. "It’s a logical decision. Nintendo’s console simply doesn’t have the graphical horsepower, and...the code we've written won't transition to the PlayStation3's unique architecture without substantial re-engineering".

Basically, they've built a 360 specific game and making it work on the PS3's architecture would be time prohibitive.

Why they had to be so sensationalist about it is beyond me.

That seems logical to me.

I actually didn't think the articles were being sensationalist, it is the developer himself. Which, coming from a big company like Ubisoft is a bit discouraging. Ubi has favored their Xbox versions for as long as I can remember (in general).

It is just not a good sign that these guys can't get on board...


This reminds me of the 30fps v 60fps issue that definitely has been sensationalized... And I point to Phil Harrison's comment about it (which I thought was nicely said):


Phis Harrison:

"Well, I can only point to our own sports studio—1080p, 60 frames-per-second basketball game. I'm afraid I have no idea. We're providing some tools and technologies from our worldwide studio's core technology groups to 3rd parties now, as well. You may remember something from GDC, we announced this thing called Edge and that's now widely deployed in the third party community, and that is clearly improving the developer's ability to maximize what the CELL processor does. So, hopefully, that will assist folks like EA.

It would concern me if the platform was incapable of doing it, but we've proven the platform is capable of doing it, so it's not a PLAYSTATION 3 issue. I'm trying to be polite."


It just puts Sony in the position of having to prove that it can do some of this stuff that developers have issues with before people will accept that it isn't a hardware limitation issue I guess.

Developers are cost-limited. Anything that requires thinking or learning costs more, takes more time and effort. It doesn't amtter to them that, the next time they try to do it, they will be able to do thing they never could before, since all that matters is making money now. I understand that, and so respect his comments. It is just that I will never actually support their notion that things should be plain and simple, since engineering sometimes requires a little bit of ingenuity and effort to do the real amazing things, the stuff that will actually make waves and let a mark on video-game history.(we all know the difference between good games and the greatest games of all times, even on ancient platforms)

Allan

He's working on a 360 exclusive, what else is he going to say? It's BS, just ask any PS3 exclusive dev like Team Ninja.

lol...that statement is just as skewed as the article :). "That 360 only guy is totally biased towards the 360...just ask this PS3 exclusive guy!" Hehe...I think it'd be better to as cross-platform devs. Not picking sides here, just thought that statement was rather ironic.

lol...that statement is just as skewed as the article :). "That 360 only guy is totally biased towards the 360...just ask this PS3 exclusive guy!" Hehe...I think it'd be better to as cross-platform devs. Not picking sides here, just thought that statement was rather ironic.

Especially when both development houses are under the same roof. Splinter Cell and Haze(timed exclusive)

I'm sure they would be happy to program around the PS3's difficulties if large numbers of gamers were willing to pay $100 each for the game. But since it is sort of maxed out at $60 per game, and the base isn't large yet, it looks like Ubi Soft doesn't think they can make their money back by creating that game for the PS3 right now.

But one must wonder, what is he saying about the other ubisoft games on the PS3? Is he admitting they have poor AI? Why should I buy GRAW2 again?

Developers are cost-limited. Anything that requires thinking or learning costs more, takes more time and effort. It doesn't amtter to them that, the next time they try to do it, they will be able to do thing they never could before, since all that matters is making money now. I understand that, and so respect his comments. It is just that I will never actually support their notion that things should be plain and simple, since engineering sometimes requires a little bit of ingenuity and effort to do the real amazing things, the stuff that will actually make waves and let a mark on video-game history.(we all know the difference between good games and the greatest games of all times, even on ancient platforms)

Allan

good post. however if the EA juggernaut doesn't have the resources to make its flagship product (madden) run as smoothly as the "competition" - what hope can smaller 3rd parties have? i have no doubt that a product developed from the ground up can and will run like silk on the PS3... but Sony needs 3rd party, cross-platform support/success. its just bad PR if they continue to lose A/B comparisons.

i think they should be very liberal regarding sharing their successful code.

I think what makes these so amusing is that Sony talked up the PS3 like it would be the most powerful thing ever and nobody would be able to touch it or use it to its full extent. Remember SUPERCOMPUTER?

Turns out its average.

Developers of Motorstom and Lair have both said statments not unlike this one and were hailed as bringers of the truth. Now we have statements from folks who actually work on both systems and its tossed aside like rumor.

He's working on a 360 exclusive, what else is he going to say? It's BS, just ask any PS3 exclusive dev like Team Ninja.

Urr, Team Ninja is far from PS3 exclusive. At best they are platform neutral although, according to Itagaki 360 is their primary next-gen platform hence DoA has been 360 exclusive the last several years and Ninja Gaiden 2 the full sequel is in progress.

You point is correct though, dev's working on exclusives tend to say nice things about the platform they have the game coming out for next. You better buy the next game as soon as possible because the 'other' platform of course could never handle what they are doing now. That is of course until they are ready to port it to the 'other' platform, then it's a wonderful platform again. ;)

I would prefer the article to be titled:

"Ubisoft Tells PS3 Gamers: Don't Buy Graw2; the AI Sucks"

I would prefer the article to be titled:

"Ubisoft Tells PS3 Gamers: Don't Buy Graw2; the AI Sucks"

"Ubisoft Tells PS3 Gamers: Buy the 360 Version of GRAW2, PS3 A.I. Sucks"

"Ubisoft Tells PS3 Gamers: Buy the 360 Version of GRAW2, PS3 A.I. Sucks"
I guess that kind of ends that debate. Wonder where that thread went...

Honestly most A.I. I have seen is not entirely too different than last gen or 360. R:FoM is really the only bad A.I. on PS3. When you open up a machine gun at close range at the enemy and they take a step to the left of right as their response 50% of the time you do have to wonder who the heck programmed the A.I.

I just think it was really bad timing for him to make that comment. His studio is about to release one of it's most successful franchises on the PS3, and he's saying that the PS3 can't do AI.

I bet we get a "clarification" really soon from Ubi.

I bet we get a "clarification" really soon from Ubi.

Yup. Third parties usually use kid gloves on both MS and Sony.

Well as long as the PS3 is still playing movies and curing cancer, who cares about A.I. anyway? :p

Honestly most A.I. I have seen is not entirely too different than last gen or 360. R:FoM is really the only bad A.I. on PS3. When you open up a machine gun at close range at the enemy and they take a step to the left of right as their response 50% of the time you do have to wonder who the heck programmed the A.I.

I have to disagree with the AI statement of RFOM. I thought it was pretty good and don't agree with the 50% of the time taking a step left or right. I've seen Chimera dive out of the way, run behind cover, as well as send guys out to flank (although the latter has been a very rare occurance). I don't think the AI in RFOM sucks. It suits the kind of game it is. It isn't a tactical shooter, it's a run and gun shooter, as evidenced by the thousands who play online using only a shotgun because they can run through your hail of bullets, crack you with a double shot and skimper away on their remaining sliver of life. But the AI, I was fine with.

AI is so subjective.

I don't recall being either impressed or disappointed by RFOM's AI. They usually just kept running right at me after I shot them. GeOW, on the other hand, had some of the best AI in the bad guys, but some of the worst AI in your side kick Dom (who was constantly getting his ass handed to him.) AI is a hard area for me to judge, (unless it really sucks).

Bah, Ubisoft games (in my opinion) tend to be garbage anyways....(especially their PS3 ports)

Bah, Ubisoft games (in my opinion) tend to be garbage anyways


Well, I guess everyone has a right to their own opinion and all....
















.... nah, screw that. That's just crazy talk. Ubi is one of the handful of elite publishers that put out AAA titles on every platform that comes along. That one developer may (or may not) be off base with his comment, but come on. Ubisoft only puts out garbage?!? I don't think there is a more wrong thing said on any thread currently in this forum.

Well, I guess everyone has a right to their own opinion and all....
















.... nah, screw that. That's just crazy talk. Ubi is one of the handful of elite publishers that put out AAA titles on every platform that comes along. That one developer may (or may not) be off base with his comment, but come on. Ubisoft only puts out garbage?!? I don't think there is a more wrong thing said on any thread currently in this forum.

Yeah... I wouldn't agree that they put out garbage, but I don't think theres much argument that they've focused on the Xbox or 360 versions of their games way more often and they tend to be more feature rich and perform & look better on the Xbox consoles (vs the Playstation).

It was always a no brainer for me to buy the Xbox version of Tom Clancy games... But now (with the PS3), I think they need to get their isht together a little better.

I was very impressed with the AI in the later tickets of Motorstorm.

In R:FoM, some enemies were smarter than others. I don't know if Insomniac did that on purpose or not. My guess is that they did it intentionally.

I remember reading a technical description of the Cell processor. It's main advantage is to process streams of data. Therefore it handles polygon, video and audio streams very well. It mentioned anything that stopped the streaming would slow things down. Maybe the devs have have not had a chance to learn to do multithreading and use the exta processing units in the cell. I also remember reading that one processing unit was unusable and that another was allocated to the OS. This might also be limiting developers.

I think a similar thing happened with the PS2, and its later generation games overcame the initial learning curve.

I read this technical description when the PS3 first came out and have not kept up with it. I will try to find it and post a link to it here.

Mabye some others here have more information /knowledge on the subject and can chime in.

I currently own a 360, Wii and looking into purchasing a PS3.

I'm sure the author is correct, Sam Fisher hiding in dark shadows while bad guys walk by not noticing his headlights on his head for his night vision would be too taxing on the PS3.

End Sarcasm.

Here's a reply in the Kotaku comments article... (I found this interesting at least... I'd never see that IBM link before)


BY ANONUSER AT 01:21 PM

@anonim1979:
"(Don't bother suggesting that the PS3 can use its SPEs for branch-intensive code, because the SPEs lack branch prediction entirely.)"

That is inaccurate.

" The SPU branch architecture does not include dynamic branch prediction, but instead relies on compiler-generated branch prediction using "prepare-to-branch" instructions to redirect instruction prefetch to branch targets."- [http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/SPU.html

Get your facts straight. And if the developer is an idiot there's not much you can do for them. The game will suffer because of stupidity and throwing allegiance around for no reason. It's no better than language zealots.

And I am a developer, not a game developer but the last 3 years of my professional life was spent on multithreaded architectures. The SPUs are generic enough and many other games are using them for AI. So please stop spreading FUD. The CELL encourages a certain threading pattern. Not sure if it directly benefits games but the damn thing can do anything the Xbox360 PPC970 can do.

Yeah right. PS3 can run complex algorithms to find cure for diseases, decode intricate SACD and AVC streams, solve supercomputing problems but it can't run small AI programs for a few cartoon characters ? I can see the developer's nose growing longer on that one.

Well that settles it then. All of us anonymous internet forum warriors know more about programming video games for the PS3 then the developers at Ubisoft.

It seems that it is going to take big devs such as EA and UBI longer than anyone thought to figure out certain aspects of the ps3's hardware.

I blame some on Sony, for not being very forthcoming with their technology from the get-go, but more on these devs for spending more time on the 360 versions. They do this now for shear financial reasons, but the more ps3's that sell, the more they will be concentrating on the ps3's cpabilities.

Well that settles it then. All of us anonymous internet forum warriors know more about programming video games for the PS3 then the developers at Ubisoft.

Lol. Seriously people act like they truly understand what these developers go through. The vibe I am getting is they are just as frustrated as gamers are, as it no doubt hurts their bottom line not being able to make games on the PS3 to the standards that they should be made.

Well, I guess everyone has a right to their own opinion and all....
.... nah, screw that. That's just crazy talk. Ubi is one of the handful of elite publishers that put out AAA titles on every platform that comes along. That one developer may (or may not) be off base with his comment, but come on. Ubisoft only puts out garbage?!? I don't think there is a more wrong thing said on any thread currently in this forum.

Oops. I forgot about Splinter Cell: CT. That was a really good game. I'm just not really into anything that has come from them recently.

Personally, I think they are making excuses. They dont want to work with something new. If its not a PC or simular they tend to get lazy, its just a cop out. They wont be getting my money and they shouldnt get you guys money either.

who cares about those frenchies anyway?...they are so dull

Personally, I think they are making excuses. They dont want to work with something new. If its not a PC or simular they tend to get lazy, its just a cop out. They wont be getting my money and they shouldnt get you guys money either.

Being lazy has nothing to do with it. If a construction company builds a one story building instead of a two story building, do you say it's because they are lazy? Clearly not. There's a return on investment analysis going on that determines how much effort they put into a given project. They don't want to spend more on making a game then what they will get back in return.

who cares about those frenchies anyway?...they are so dull
A whole lot of people care about them.

it was already told that the Cell processor can do anything you want it to. I can hanlde your garage door opener if needed to be. this developer does not know what he is talking about they made the stupidest games in history when you think about it. The person is just jelous becuase he didnt come up with CELL and home folding programs etc...if PS3 can cure cancer why cant it play or make his stupid games...dull....

Being lazy has nothing to do with it. If a construction company builds a one story building instead of a two story building, do you say it's because they are lazy? Clearly not. There's a return on investment analysis going on that determines how much effort they put into a given project. They don't want to spend more on making a game then what they will get back in return.
I call it lazy they need to invest into the future of PS3 take a loss now to become billionaires later...easy as pie. :rolleyes:

I was very impressed with the AI in the later tickets of Motorstorm.

In R:FoM, some enemies were smarter than others. I don't know if Insomniac did that on purpose or not. My guess is that they did it intentionally.

The menials AI is insane!!1

I think the advanced hybrid AI and the steelheads AI are very damn good. They constantly flank and shoot from behind their cover.

The menials AI is insane!!1

I think the advanced hybrid AI and the steelheads AI are very damn good. They constantly flank and shoot from behind their cover.
exactly and they just dont shoot everywhere either like one game I know that starts with H and ends with O.

exactly and they just dont shoot everywhere either like one game I know that starts with H and ends with O.
Yeah, I liked how they were leading their targets, rather than putting the crosshairs on where your at the moment they start shooting. Had to get used to that. I'm so used to just strafing while being shot at like in other FPS games.

AI doesn't lend itself to the Cell CPU.

The Cell has only one PPE to the Xenon's three, which means that developers will have to cram all their game control, AI, and physics code into at most two threads that are sharing a very narrow execution core with no instruction window. (Don't bother suggesting that the PS3 can use its SPEs for branch-intensive code, because the SPEs lack branch prediction entirely.) Furthermore, the PS3's L2 is only 512K, which is half the size of the Xenon's L2. So the PS3 doesn't get much help with branches in the cache department. In short, the PS3 may fare a bit worse than the Xenon on non-graphics code, but on the upside it will probably fare a bit better on graphics code because of the seven SPEs."

So there you go

it was already told that the Cell processor can do anything you want it to. I can hanlde your garage door opener if needed to be. this developer does not know what he is talking about they made the stupidest games in history when you think about it. The person is just jelous becuase he didnt come up with CELL and home folding programs etc...if PS3 can cure cancer why cant it play or make his stupid games...dull....

You obviously know nothing about developing games :rolleyes:

AI doesn't lend itself to the Cell CPU.

The Cell has only one PPE to the Xenon's three, which means that developers will have to cram all their game control, AI, and physics code into at most two threads that are sharing a very narrow execution core with no instruction window. (Don't bother suggesting that the PS3 can use its SPEs for branch-intensive code, because the SPEs lack branch prediction entirely.) Furthermore, the PS3's L2 is only 512K, which is half the size of the Xenon's L2. So the PS3 doesn't get much help with branches in the cache department. In short, the PS3 may fare a bit worse than the Xenon on non-graphics code, but on the upside it will probably fare a bit better on graphics code because of the seven SPEs."

So there you go

Oh cool! We're just throwing up random quotes and saying "there you go"?

Here's one then: ;)

"The stuff about branch prediction is presumptuous and wrong. The SPEs have programmable branch hints which yield on average faster branch performance than PPE and Xenon cores because SPEs have shorter pipelines.

SPEs have better best case and worst case branching. SPE cost is between 1 and 16 cycles majority being near 1, and for PPE/Xenon cost is between 8 and 26 cycles, majority being near 8.

Head to head, just about any code will run faster on an SPE than on PPE. The only issue is converting it to run on SPE in the 1st place, the burden of which does fall on the developer's shoulders, which is why devs have to design with that in mind from day 1.

If making a 360+PS3 game, developing 1st code on 360 is RETARDED because it will all have to be rethought and written again for PS3. It is much smarter to do the PS3 first.

Developing 2 years on 360 and leaving a few months to port to PS3 is the biggest mistake a developer could possibly make, but unfortunatly that's what has happened. Porting from 360 to PS3 is hard, but from PS3 to 360 is easy, and the same methods used to optimize PS3 code also make 360 code run better." ... (http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showpost.php?p=250019&postcount=51)

Could we link to our sources when we cite technical opinions so that we can try to judge their credability?

Maybe I'm taking a different track, but I'm rather glad he said what he did. Gives me enough to know that despite the new gimmicks Conviction will be a lot more like Double Agent than I'd hoped, and thus a definite must pass. It's like they're specifically trying to take the Splinter Cell out of.....Splinter Cell. (As for Ubisoft and AAA titles, I'd love to see someone try and defend the crap that Ubisoft Shanghai has....produced).

Part of the reasoning behind Conviction’s new direction was to make a game less intimidating to newcomers. “We’re not doing another Chaos Theory, we’re doing something where the player will be able to jump right in.”

When I was hanging out in the Ubisoft forums, hoping/hunting for any fixes to that steaming pile of excrement in polycarbonate plastic form known as Double Agent, that was pretty much the biggest gripe regarding gameplay, that it was rather dumbed down, simplistic, and completely destructive to the online play experience. Turned from a relatively unique game needed cooperation and strategy to nothing more than a third person CS with a hint of stealth. So were they to release Conviction for the PS3, in addition to being a shoddy half-assed port of the 360 version, it would most likely be just as poor as Double Agent.

Could we link to our sources when we cite technical opinions so that we can try to judge their credability?


Exactly my point.

(I did btw... Click the periods at the end of my quote)

Ubisoft is the laziest 3rd party publisher on the planet with EA is running a tight second. They want maximum profit from minimum effort. If you don't want to custom code to the PS3's seven SPUs don't expect the results to be pretty, plain and simple.

With that said, here are at least some official comments from Sony on the issue of A.I. on the PS3. A poster called 'Free' at the official PlayStation Blog asked about the issue and one of Sony's Senior Directors had this response (comment #65) (http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/08/13/ps3-stress-test/#comment-15855) :

@Free — PS3 can more than handle AI, as you will see with Heavenly Sword, which has hundreds of on-screen enemies with different AI routines at one time thanks to the power of CELL.

So who to believe? The masters of lazy ports in Ubisoft that have yet to show they know what they are doing on the PS3, or Sony who is publishing a game with hundreds of individual A.I. characters at once?

Exactly my point.

(I did btw... Click the periods at the end of my quote)



thanks, I didn't see those!

Ubisoft is the laziest 3rd party publisher on the planet with EA is running a tight second. They want maximum profit from minimum effort. If you don't want to custom code to the PS3's seven SPUs don't expect the results to be pretty, plain and simple.

With that said, here are at least some official comments from Sony on the issue of A.I. on the PS3. A poster called 'Free' at the official PlayStation Blog asked about the issue and one of Sony's Senior Directors had this response (comment #65) (http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/08/13/ps3-stress-test/#comment-15855) :


LOL... Guess who "free" is!! :D


I hadn't checked yet to see if there was a response from Sony... You gotta love the world wide interweb eh!

Hey, props for getting a response directly from Sony!

Hey, props for getting a response directly from Sony!

Thanks... and hey... I was looking for a more technical rebuttal, but that'll have to do. I will say that I did enjoy the Heavenly Sword demo and played it a lot to mess around with the combos and physics... But I did have times where I got three enemies all sync'd into the exact same attack animation/pre-attack animations. I would have expected NOT to see that.

But I know they have gameplay where you have thousands of AI enemies to fight with... which is impressive on its own.

Ninja Theory has said repeatedly that our demo was from an early version done months ago. The final game clears up a lot of the issues we all noticed.

Thanks... and hey... I was looking for a more technical rebuttal, but that'll have to do. I will say that I did enjoy the Heavenly Sword demo and played it a lot to mess around with the combos and physics... But I did have times where I got three enemies all sync'd into the exact same attack animation/pre-attack animations. I would have expected NOT to see that.

But I know they have gameplay where you have thousands of AI enemies to fight with... which is impressive on its own.

I didn't find the HS demo to be impressive in the AI. But it looked really nice.

AI doesn't lend itself to the Cell CPU.

The Cell has only one PPE to the Xenon's three, which means that developers will have to cram all their game control, AI, and physics code into at most two threads that are sharing a very narrow execution core with no instruction window. (Don't bother suggesting that the PS3 can use its SPEs for branch-intensive code, because the SPEs lack branch prediction entirely.) Furthermore, the PS3's L2 is only 512K, which is half the size of the Xenon's L2. So the PS3 doesn't get much help with branches in the cache department. In short, the PS3 may fare a bit worse than the Xenon on non-graphics code, but on the upside it will probably fare a bit better on graphics code because of the seven SPEs."

So there you go

That analysis is obsolete. First off, why would anyone do physics on the PPU? The PPU is used as a task master, it should not be running a heavy load of code. Second, you can do AI on the SPUs:

"Branching is a common technique...where a program randomly chooses a few samples from a larger set of options, and then tests each to see which is the best...Most developers have claimed that the SPUs would be absolutely terrible for branching. As Sony put it however, branching is absolutely terrible for ALL processors. In their experience, they said, it is less terrible for the SPUs however. In the upcoming game Heavenly Sword, they said that moving the branching AI off of the Power Processor Unit (PPU) increased the performance of that particular process. In other words, the same branching ran better on the SPUs."

Since Sony has had success creating AI superior to that available on other consoles relying on different setups (triple-core PPC, etc), they've included ways for developers to have similar success with the EDGE kit. One more thing, too, was added into EDGE: "Sony said that much of their success with the Cell has come from the development of a tool they call the SPURS Kernel, a small program which sits on each SPU and enables it to better perform the tasks that programmers use it for. This SPURS Kernel was included in the EDGE suite of tools."

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2007/03/09/sony-says-cell-can-handle-branching-for-ai-better-than-the-re/

I didn't find the HS demo to be impressive in the AI. But it looked really nice.
Agreed but, to be fair, we only got two fight sequences on what I would assume was an extremely easy setting.

I was most amazed at the lip syncing in that game... Most of the time it seems like they never bother getting that right... It was pretty tight (especially if the demo is an old build like they say).

Can someone lock this thread?

Did you guys ever watch the SC:C videos that the devs showed? The AI sucked ass, so what are these guys talking about? Sounds like they are hyping their game and it's BS.

The AI in this video is laughable, maybe they have done an overhaul.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/67506.html

Notice:

Groups of people walk or stand like zombies. That's great AI.

Lead the guard around the corner, in a public park in DC for a one punch/throw knockout. Not one person heard or saw this, there was forty+ people just feet away.

Sam steals a cell phone in front of a group, they snitch on him to a guard nearby, yet Sam just walks off? No APB put out for a guy with a hood?

Sam shoots a propane tank with a machine gun, everyone is drawn to the explosion - no one points at the guy with the machine gun 20 feet away?

Did he jump through a window at the end with no one turning to look?

I'm convinced the PS3 could never do this game ;)

I didn't find the HS demo to be impressive in the AI. But it looked really nice.
I thought the AI was okay in the demo. Nothing special, just mostly "dodge when attacked, attack" patterns.

I found it kind of odd that the developers challenged players to kill every enemy with just counter-attacks. I found the game way easier to counter attack everyone then to actually fight. My favorite self-imposed challenge was trying to kill everyone with thrown weapons/corpses or using non-lethal throwing items to kill everyone.

Also, trying to throw corpses from the first area onto the 2nd area is a challenge I doubt I'll ever complete. Though, throwing bodies so they boomerang is also pretty funny. My fiance thinks I'm cruel.

That *might* be true if your code doesn't spread itself across all the SPUs but its not true in general, in fact there a good chance that Cell is significantly better at branchy code than Xenon's CPU.

Lets do some back of the envelope figures...

The *worst* case theoretical performance for the 7 SPUs (3.2Ghz at 17 cycles per branch) is 1.3 billion branches per second...

So each of the 2 extra Xenon main cores have to have a branch rate of ~650 million branches per second to keep up "in theory". Or to put it another way, a worse case timing of 5 cycles per branch.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1049293&postcount=62

That's from the lead programmer on Heavenly Sword, someone who knows the Cell intimately. Here is his blog:

http://blog.deanoc.com/?p=96

I thought the AI was okay in the demo. Nothing special, just mostly "dodge when attacked, attack" patterns.

I found it kind of odd that the developers challenged players to kill every enemy with just counter-attacks. I found the game way easier to counter attack everyone then to actually fight. My favorite self-imposed challenge was trying to kill everyone with thrown weapons/corpses or using non-lethal throwing items to kill everyone.

Also, trying to throw corpses from the first area onto the 2nd area is a challenge I doubt I'll ever complete. Though, throwing bodies so they boomerang is also pretty funny. My fiance thinks I'm cruel.

I challenged myself to kill everyone with a different aerial combo (which look awesome when the camera zooms in), and then repeat them once I've done them all. Enemies in the demo usually block your launch attempts until you figure out a few things some of you may notice, so it can be tricky. Plus, if you are too close to the edge you'll aerial them out without being able to jump and attack them.

The A.I. in the final, will be different in some ways compared to the demo according to the developer We'll see next month. It may be tough to get a balance of playability and realism when it comes to A.I. in any game. You don't want true realism or it could be too tough, but you don't want it too easy either.

I challenged myself to kill everyone with a different aerial combo (which look awesome when the camera zooms in), and then repeat them once I've done them all. Enemies in the demo usually block your launch attempts until you figure out a few things some of you may notice, so it can be tricky. Plus, if you are too close to the edge you'll aerial them out without being able to jump and attack them.

The A.I. in the final, will be different in some ways compared to the demo according to the developer We'll see next month. It may be tough to get a balance of playability and realism when it comes to A.I. in any game. You don't want true realism or it could be too tough, but you don't want it too easy either.
Yeah, I did that too with killing everyone with air combos. That was kinda fun too.

It wasn't terribly difficult to figure out how to get around their constant dodging. A lot of my combos usually involve very little speed attacks and more ranged+strong attack combo variations. Still not as enjoyable compared to killing bad guys with throwing crap though. I've gotten a few swords to stick out of their heads.

AI doesn't lend itself to the Cell CPU.

The Cell has only one PPE to the Xenon's three, which means that developers will have to cram all their game control, AI, and physics code into at most two threads that are sharing a very narrow execution core with no instruction window. (Don't bother suggesting that the PS3 can use its SPEs for branch-intensive code, because the SPEs lack branch prediction entirely.) Furthermore, the PS3's L2 is only 512K, which is half the size of the Xenon's L2. So the PS3 doesn't get much help with branches in the cache department. In short, the PS3 may fare a bit worse than the Xenon on non-graphics code, but on the upside it will probably fare a bit better on graphics code because of the seven SPEs."

So there you go

Blaming processor architecture for software headaches, to a point, is a legitimate issue.

On the other hand, making overall claims like "AI doesn't lend itself to the Cell CPU." is like Pontiac blaming the engine for why their Aztek looks so stupid.

Anybody ever hear a claim about how lousy the x86 architecture is for AI? Me neither.

Ubi needs to figure out a way to do it and they're upset about it. That's what this whole thread boils down to.

Ubi needs to figure out a way to do it and they're upset about it. That's what this whole thread boils down to.

Yes, but it's no credit to Sony that they designed a game machine that Software developers are upset about because they are having trouble figuring out to program for it. The end result is still the same - it hurst the PS3 library.

Yes, but it's no credit to Sony that they designed a game machine that Software developers are upset about because they are having trouble figuring out to program for it. The end result is still the same - it hurst the PS3 library.

It's the exact same issue as when the PS2 came out. That library certainly didn't suffer as a result.

It's the exact same issue as when the PS2 came out. That library certainly didn't suffer as a result.


Then why is Madden 30fps on the PS3 but 60fps on the 360? Appearently the PS3 library is suffering, at least a little.

Some people act like they don't care about gaming this year. But to me, gaming today is just as important as gaming 2 years from now. Having great games in the last year of a consoles life cycle isn't more important than having great games in the first year. I'm sure next year will be great, but some people want to play this year, too.

So I don't think it is accurate to say the more complicated cpu on the PS3 isn't going to hurt it's library, simply because you think it will rebound in a few years. Not if you care about gaming in 2007 as much as you care about gaming in 2009.

Then why is Madden 30fps on the PS3 but 60fps on the 360? Appearently the PS3 library is suffering, at least a little.

Some people act like they don't care about gaming this year. But to me, gaming today is just as important as gaming 2 years from now. Having great games in the last year of a consoles life cycle isn't more important than having great games in the first year. I'm sure next year will be great, but some people want to play this year, too.

So I don't think it is accurate to say the more complicated cpu on the PS3 isn't going to hurt it's library, simply because you think it will rebound in a few years. Not if you care about gaming in 2007 as much as you care about gaming in 2009.

It's more different than complicated. Sure there is a learning curve but that is the case for any hardware. Look how far the 360 has come compared to launch and now that developers are more familiar with it. Look at the fact that it took the third iteration for Madden to reach 60 fps on supposedly the easy to develop 360. Simply put, there is a learning curve for either hardware. It's not that it's hard, or that it's troublesome. It's that it just takes time. We're still in first generation software. Look at first generation software in the past and then look at later generations. It's sometimes hard to believe they're from the same generation. Both architectures are different and will cause hiccups and issues no matter which way you port. Our current game was up and running on the PS3 first and the 360 version has been a bit of a pain and runs nowhere as good as the PS3 version currently. All that shows is if you go 360 to PS3 there will be issues the same way if you go PS3 to 360. It doesn't mean one is completely easier to develop for, it's just that devs have more experience with. Again, we're still in the first generation of software and we're not even finished with the first year of the systems life. Have some patience or do we need to look back at games like Gun and Tony Hawk as evidence of the shortcomings of the 360? Or even the pitiful performance of Quake 4? Have some perspective on this...

Have some patience or do we need to look back at games like Gun and Tony Hawk as evidence of the shortcomings of the 360? Or even the pitiful performance of Quake 4? Have some perspective on this...

Those games bring up some interesting perspectives.

So based on your comments we should be judging PS3 Madden against two last gen ports to 360 and a PC port all of which did not ship 8 months after launch but on launch?

Look at the fact that it took the third iteration for Madden to reach 60 fps on supposedly the easy to develop 360.
I was going to make that point too. Seems like people forget the previous 360 versions were 30fps. I wonder why it never gets brought up.... ;)

It's more different than complicated. ..


Before I enter another conversation with you, I have a question. You refer to yourself as a developer, but won't say who you work for. That's fine, I can understand that. Can you at least tell us what your job title is, such that we can tell what side of the field you work in? Are you in the networking side, the programming side, the art side, accounting, what? Because appeals to authority are only effective if you can establish that you are an authority.


Beyond that, the internet is littered with verified developers who have said that the PS3 is complicated to program for. Yes it is new. Yes it is different. But it is also more complicated. Some have called it a nightmare. Now it may be worth the effort. It may be that all future programs will need to be more complicated because we have to split the workload into 7 different parts. Simple programing for simple cores, complicated programing for complicated cores. We can no longer make improvements with simple cores, so we have to go more complicated cores, that will require more complicated programming. But for you to act like it's not more complicated to program for the PS3 than the 360 is unsupportable. At least it goes against what just about everyone else has written about it.

Finally, you urge me to be patient. Why should I be patient? That is not a virtue in this context. You're presuming that it is more important for people to have fun in the future than it is for them to have fun right now. Why would I choose to be patient and not have fun now just so that I could have fun at some undetermined point in the future? The whole point of these systems is gratification, so delaying gratification is undermines the goal here.

Those games bring up some interesting perspectives.

So based on your comments we should be judging PS3 Madden against two last gen ports to 360 and a PC port all of which did not ship 8 months after launch but on launch?

No, but we should be pointing out that Madden on the 360 took three tries before it was 60 fps. The point of Gun, Tony Hawk, and Quake 4 was that some were quick ports, others ran like crap. None of which was reaching the Gears of War calibur on what everyone thinks is a super simple to develop for system. Things took time to get to where they are now and having perspective on such you should at least be understandable that 9 months into the systems life that it's not maxing out the system. Developers are still getting their tools and engines optimized and running well on the PS3 and that will take some development time to have that mature to a level that is efficient. We're only 9 months in.

Before I enter another conversation with you, I have a question. You refer to yourself as a developer, but won't say who you work for. That's fine, I can understand that. Can you at least tell us what your job title is, such that we can tell what side of the field you work in? Are you in the networking side, the programming side, the art side, accounting, what? Because appeals to authority are only effective if you can establish that you are an authority.


I am a software engineer that has worked on PS2, Xbox, PS3 and Xbox 360 development. I am currently working on both PS3 and Xbox 360 simultaneously.


Beyond that, the internet is littered with verified developers who have said that the PS3 is complicated to program for. Yes it is new. Yes it is different. But it is also more complicated. Some have called it a nightmare. Now it may be worth the effort. It may be that all future programs will need to be more complicated because we have to split the workload into 7 different parts. Simple programing for simple cores, complicated programing for complicated cores. We can no longer make improvements with simple cores, so we have to go more complicated cores, that will require more complicated programming. But for you to act like it's not more complicated to program for the PS3 than the 360 is unsupportable. At least it goes against what just about everyone else has written about it.


Both systems are complicated systems to develop for. The 360 definitely has more mature tools and an easier debugging environment. I'm not saying the PS3 isn't complicated but I think more of the claims about complexity have to deal with that it's different rather than extremely more complicated. Just like back on the PS2 when people complained about the system having 4 megs of VRAM when in fact it wasn't VRAM. It was embedded DRAM used for a frame buffer. It involved a different way of thinking and if you'll notice, the 360 now uses that design in having embedded memory as a frame buffer. Back then it was complicated because it was new and different. Now, everyone is used to it so it's not a big deal since everyone understand how it's supposed to be used. The SPUs are way easier to develop for than the PS2's VUs and it's more dealing with designing things so that you can farm off tasks to the SPUs. You have to think more in a multiprocessor and threading environment much more than you do on the 360 even though it does have three cores. So yes, it's more complicated in the sense that's new and you have to think differently but I really think that once developers learn the ins and outs and become more familiar with it, it'll just be more of a factor of being different than the 360 rather than being more complicated. Complication usually means it takes more effort to get the same results. It of course means other things, but that's really the whole crutch about all this. You have to realize though that in parallel development no platform ever gets equal development time to begin with. So it really comes down to where you start, ie PS3 or 360, and then where do you go to, ie 360 or PS3.

In our experience, we're doing something that most developers aren't. We started on PS3 and then moved to 360. Developers are complaining how complicated it is to go from 360 to PS3, but flipping the coin on the other side and viewing it from the other side of the fence, you get a similar problem going PS3 to 360. Our PS3 build runs great while the 360 runs sluggish. Now is the 360 all of a sudden more complicated and harder to develop for or is it simply different?


Finally, you urge me to be patient. Why should I be patient? That is not a virtue in this context. You're presuming that it is more important for people to have fun in the future than it is for them to have fun right now. Why would I choose to be patient and not have fun now just so that I could have fun at some undetermined point in the future? The whole point of these systems is gratification, so delaying gratification is undermines the goal here.

No, what I'm saying is to have some perspective and understanding. We're not even a year into the life of the system and while it sorta sucks right now, that will all soon be forgotten. In fact look how nobody remembers how bad the 360 was early on becomes now developers have gotten more familiar with the system and great games are coming out. First generation and first year is always slow, rough, and lacks software. This has been the same across all platforms regardless of who made them and what developers were there for the last 30 years. So why is it all of a sudden everyone wants to hold the PS3 to some unreasonable standard of somehow being able to magically create games?

I am a software engineer that has worked on PS2, Xbox, PS3 and Xbox 360 development. I am currently working on both PS3 and Xbox 360 simultaneously.



Both systems are complicated systems to develop for. The 360 definitely has more mature tools and an easier debugging environment. I'm not saying the PS3 isn't complicated but I think more of the claims about complexity have to deal with that it's different rather than extremely more complicated. Just like back on the PS2 when people complained about the system having 4 megs of VRAM when in fact it wasn't VRAM. It was embedded DRAM used for a frame buffer. It involved a different way of thinking and if you'll notice, the 360 now uses that design in having embedded memory as a frame buffer. Back then it was complicated because it was new and different. Now, everyone is used to it so it's not a big deal since everyone understand how it's supposed to be used. The SPUs are way easier to develop for than the PS2's VUs and it's more dealing with designing things so that you can farm off tasks to the SPUs. You have to think more in a multiprocessor and threading environment much more than you do on the 360 even though it does have three cores. So yes, it's more complicated in the sense that's new and you have to think differently but I really think that once developers learn the ins and outs and become more familiar with it, it'll just be more of a factor of being different than the 360 rather than being more complicated. Complication usually means it takes more effort to get the same results. It of course means other things, but that's really the whole crutch about all this. You have to realize though that in parallel development no platform ever gets equal development time to begin with. So it really comes down to where you start, ie PS3 or 360, and then where do you go to, ie 360 or PS3.

In our experience, we're doing something that most developers aren't. We started on PS3 and then moved to 360. Developers are complaining how complicated it is to go from 360 to PS3, but flipping the coin on the other side and viewing it from the other side of the fence, you get a similar problem going PS3 to 360. Our PS3 build runs great while the 360 runs sluggish. Now is the 360 all of a sudden more complicated and harder to develop for or is it simply different?



No, what I'm saying is to have some perspective and understanding. We're not even a year into the life of the system and while it sorta sucks right now, that will all soon be forgotten. In fact look how nobody remembers how bad the 360 was early on becomes now developers have gotten more familiar with the system and great games are coming out. First generation and first year is always slow, rough, and lacks software. This has been the same across all platforms regardless of who made them and what developers were there for the last 30 years. So why is it all of a sudden everyone wants to hold the PS3 to some unreasonable standard of somehow being able to magically create games?


Are you able to describe what genre your game falls under and how long have you been in development of the game(s) you are making?

I am a software engineer that has worked on PS2, Xbox, PS3 and Xbox 360 development. I


Thank you for your response. I don't have time to carry on right now, but I wanted to note that I had read it and I appreciate the time you put into it.

So what is the real answer to all of this?

Can one system "handle AI" (meaning the most complex AI one can imagine for a video game) better or worse than the other?

Or is it about equal? (Which seems to be the "safe" answer for everyone who tries to remain objective... lol) But what is the truth? :)

Nice posts Darknight. I guess people are less forgiving when their paying $499-$599 for a console instead of the usual $299 generations ago. Could you give us anymore insight on programming for the ps3?

didn't bother reading through this thread. but imo, all Ubi is doing here is trying to promote their game as it is a 360/PC exclusive.

didn't bother reading through this thread. but imo, all Ubi is doing here is trying to promote their game as it is a 360/PC exclusive.
The fact that a developer is complaining about the difficulties of programming for the PS3 isn't unusual. We could probably find a dozen of those type statements.

The only thing I think is strange about this is the fact that his studio has a game about to be released on the PS3, right at the same time he trashed it's ability to do AI.

^^

What game is that?

^^

What game is that?

GRAW 2. I bet the people working on that game wish he would STFU.

The fact that a developer is complaining about the difficulties of programming for the PS3 isn't unusual. We could probably find a dozen of those type statements.

The only thing I think is strange about this is the fact that his studio has a game about to be released on the PS3, right at the same time he trashed it's ability to do AI.
he is not complaining about the ps3, hes saying the ps3 can't handle the AI "nearly as well as the 360" (which is total BS btw). so basically, hes saying the AI in SC C will be very good.

btw, SC C is being developed by Ubisoft Montreal and GRAW2 is being developed by Ubisoft Paris.

he is not complaining about the ps3, hes saying the ps3 can't handle the AI "nearly as well as the 360" (which is total BS btw). so basically, hes saying the AI in SC C will be very good.

btw, SC C is being developed by Ubisoft Montreal and GRAW2 is being developed by Ubisoft Paris.

You can characterize that as you wish, I suppose. When a developer says he won't be putting out a game on the PS3 because it can't handle the AI, I characterize that as a complaint - legitimate or not.

But the main point is the folks in Ubi Paris need to send someone to Montreal to have a talk with this guy.

Developers are still getting their tools and engines optimized and running well on the PS3 and that will take some development time to have that mature to a level that is efficient. We're only 9 months in.

I know this is a popular mantra among the PS faithful, but it doesn't really ring true. The PS3 was supposed to release in the spring of '06...would we still be in this position of waiting if it released on time? Probably.
Maybe they should have delayed another 6 months so we could be say "We're only 3 months in...be patient" :D

First generation and first year is always slow, rough, and lacks software. This has been the same across all platforms regardless of who made them and what developers were there for the last 30 years. So why is it all of a sudden everyone wants to hold the PS3 to some unreasonable standard of somehow being able to magically create games?
The answer to this is simple, and I think you know the answer, especially being a game dev.

It's because the PS3 is "newer". Newer is supposed to be better, right?

Every other gen, the newer console was better from a technical standpoint. Last gen, the Xbox was technically superior to the PS2. It wasn't even a question. Ports actually ran better on the Xbox (with the exception of MGS2). The power difference between the two consoles was evident from the get-go. It wasn't a matter of the xbox being too new or difficult to code for, it was simply a matter of trying to get devs to make games for it, when you had the PS2 juggernaut on the other side.

The PS3 released nearly a year after the 360... so why isn't it better from a technical standpoint? Because it isn't, really. Both consoles have strengths to contrast the other's weaknesses... but that never has really been the case in any previous gen. People are used to the console that released later being more powerful, so that's what they expect. The newer console is supposed to recognize the mistakes the older console made, and ensure they don't make the same ones.

The answer to this is simple, and I think you know the answer, especially being a game dev.

It's because the PS3 is "newer". Newer is supposed to be better, right?

Every other gen, the newer console was better from a technical standpoint. Last gen, the Xbox was technically superior to the PS2. It wasn't even a question. Ports actually ran better on the Xbox (with the exception of MGS2). The power difference between the two consoles was evident from the get-go. It wasn't a matter of the xbox being too new or difficult to code for, it was simply a matter of trying to get devs to make games for it, when you had the PS2 juggernaut on the other side.

The PS3 released nearly a year after the 360... so why isn't it better from a technical standpoint? Because it isn't, really. Both consoles have strengths to contrast the other's weaknesses... but that never has really been the case in any previous gen. People are used to the console that released later being more powerful, so that's what they expect. The newer console is supposed to recognize the mistakes the older console made, and ensure they don't make the same ones.
Don't agree with you here. Forza 2 + PGR 4 have been in development for the 360 for how long? Their second generation 360 games and they don't hold a candle to GT 5 prologue (60 fps @ 1080p) which is a first generation PS3 game. There is no xbox fan blind enough (except one on neogaf) that can refute this. If the 360 is on par or more powerful, why do some of the first gen. ps3 games look better than second gen 360 games?

Games on the ps3 that look amazing for being a first gen title; Ratchet and Clank, GT5, Resistance and Motorstorm. If GT5 is what they can do in their first year, I'm going to be blown away by GT 6.

One game that worries me is FF 13. I'm sure the graphics will be amazing, it's the plot/story and gameplay I'm concerned about. I couldn't pull myself together to play FF8, FF9, FF10, and FF12. FF11 (mmorpg) on the other hand was terrific. Too complicated for most Americans, but the complexity and depth is what I loved about it. One rpg I'm sure that will be great is White Knight Story. Level 5 have been producing hit after hit. Their my favorite rpg developer right now.

Don't agree with you here. Forza 2 + PGR 4 have been in development for the 360 for how long? Their second generation 360 games and they don't hold a candle to GT 5 prologue (60 fps @ 1080p) which is a first generation PS3 game. There is no xbox fan blind enough (except one on neogaf) that can refute this. If the 360 is on par or more powerful, why do some of the first gen. ps3 games look better than second gen 360 games?

Games on the ps3 that look amazing for being a first gen title; Ratchet and Clank, GT5, Resistance and Motorstorm. If GT5 is what they can do in their first year, I'm going to be blown away by GT 6.

One game that worries me is FF 13. I'm sure the graphics will be amazing, it's the plot/story and gameplay I'm concerned about. I couldn't pull myself together to play FF8, FF9, FF10, and FF12. FF11 (mmorpg) on the other hand was terrific. Too complicated for most Americans, but the complexity and depth is what I loved about it. One rpg I'm sure that will be great is White Knight Story. Level 5 have been producing hit after hit. Their my favorite rpg developer right now.

This is a PS3 forum, and you are a PS3 owner. You have every right to think your PS3 games look better, even though in some cases I would disagree with you. But I would point out that Ratchet and Clank will come out at about the same point in time for the PS3 as Gears of War did for the 360. Actually, I believe Gears would be a little bit before R and C.

Games on the ps3 that look amazing for being a first gen title; Ratchet and Clank, GT5, Resistance and Motorstorm. If GT5 is what they can do in their first year, I'm going to be blown away by GT 6

You will be waiting a long time for 6 since it was announced that 5 won't be released until 09.

Don't agree with you here. Forza 2 + PGR 4 have been in development for the 360 for how long? Their second generation 360 games and they don't hold a candle to GT 5 prologue (60 fps @ 1080p) which is a first generation PS3 game.

You are comparing 3 games here. Two of the games have not yet been released. And I'm guessing that you haven't played any of them.

So what, exactly, is the basis for your conclusion? :confused:

You are comparing 3 games here. Two of the games have not yet been released. And I'm guessing that you haven't played any of them.

So what, exactly, is the basis for your conclusion? :confused:
Forza 2 is out and I'm comparing that to GT5 prologue which is coming out in October. I'm not sure when PGR4 is coming out, but a guy on Neogaf claims that it looks better than or is on par with GT5. Everyone scoffed at him, but he firmly believes it -___-

I've played the GT5 demo, does that count? I don't see how or why polyphony would or could mess up GT5's gameplay so I'm not sure why that would be an issue.

Basically, I feel that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 from what I've seen. Of course, some 360 owners would say otherwise.

GRAW 2. I bet the people working on that game wish he would STFU.
Apparently you are right. :D

PlayStation 3 harder to develop for? Nonsense, says GRAW team (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=27782)

Forza 2 is out and I'm comparing that to GT5 prologue which is coming out in October. I'm not sure when PGR4 is coming out, but a guy on Neogaf claims that it looks better than or is on par with GT5. Everyone scoffed at him, but he firmly believes it -___-

I've played the GT5 demo, does that count? I don't see how or why polyphony would or could mess up GT5's gameplay so I'm not sure why that would be an issue.

PGR4 has better looking tracks and environments. GT5 has better looking cars. The difference in the two games is not night and day. Both look gorgeous.

You say the PS3 is more powerful than the 360... Then why is it having such a hard time with 3rd party multiplatform games and ports? The Xbox had no problems with 3rd party multiplatform titles or ports last gen. Why? Because it was more powerful.

The 1st party games might appear to be the difference, but apps created specifically for an individual platform without portability in mind are no indication of that platform's power. MGS2 ran better on the PS2 than on the Xbox, but the Xbox was clearly more powerful.

The two consoles are equal in terms of overall raw power. There are things one can do that the other cannot, from a technical standpoint. The difference is what the developers can do with each.

Some developers may prefer the unified shader architecture and the Hardwre HDR abilities of the 360's GPU to give thier games the visuals they desire. Others might prefer the offloading of tasks to the SPE's on the Cell. It just depends. There is no clear indication that either is the most powerful system. If one is, it's a negligible difference. Not like last gen.

You say the PS3 is more powerful than the 360... Then why is it having such a hard time with 3rd party multiplatform games and ports? The Xbox had no problems with 3rd party multiplatform titles or ports last gen. Why? Because it was more powerful.
Thats ridiculous... And play Madden 06 on the 360 and tell me they didn't have port issues.

But for a developer explanation on the early difficulties, see the link to the article above your post.

And then read this: Q&A With PS3 GRAW2 Dev (http://kotaku.com/gaming/kotaku-q%26a/developing-graw2-for-the-ps3-290620.php)

You say the PS3 is more powerful than the 360... Then why is it having such a hard time with 3rd party multiplatform games and ports? The Xbox had no problems with 3rd party multiplatform titles or ports last gen. Why? Because it was more powerful.
first of all, the PS3 is not more powerful than the 360, they are pretty even... lets get that out of the way. but the Xbox is different from PlayStation systems; Sony always goes against the grain and their systems are quite different. MS' systems have been straight forward and easier to develop for. since they're a software company, they also have very good development tools for developers (which is ESSENTIAL). as the the GRAW2 team at Ubisoft said in the interviews recently posted, it will take time for developers to learn the hardware. that why were seeing such great looking first/second party titles, because they have the best knowledge of the hardware. there are some talented and very knowledgeable thirdparty developers out there, such as Bethesda, Infinity Ward and a few others.

The two consoles are equal in terms of overall raw power. There are things one can do that the other cannot, from a technical standpoint. The difference is what the developers can do with each.
i agree. at least at this point in time, i think they are equal. i really think the PS3 has a little more headroom though, especially considering its newer.

Some developers may prefer the unified shader architecture and the Hardwre HDR abilities of the 360's GPU to give thier games the visuals they desire. Others might prefer the offloading of tasks to the SPE's on the Cell. It just depends. There is no clear indication that either is the most powerful system. If one is, it's a negligible difference. Not like last gen.
the 360's hardware is not capable of producing HDR levels higher than that of the PS3.

GRAW 2. I bet the people working on that game wish he would STFU.

Well, here's the response from a GRAW developer. It's like a circus with everyone trying to put on a show. lol


Ubisoft developers said on Friday that developing games for Sony's PS3 is no more difficult than for Microsoft's Xbox 360 despite recent comparisons, reports, and statements suggesting otherwise.

The development debate continues...


"It's not harder to develop on the PS3 than it is on the 360, it's just a different console," said Yann Le Tensorer, the Ubisoft lead developer responsible for Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. "Developers might say it's harder because it just takes time to understand the technology, we're still early in the lifecycle."


Le Tensorer added that it will take the entire development community to bring PS3 development up to speed as was the case with Xbox 360 according to Ubisoft. "We need all developers to learn from the console; it was the same with the PlayStation 2. Our team is more than happy with the PlayStation 3."


The statement comes amid unfavorable PS3 comparisons by USA Today, a recent report, and industry analysts suggesting that the PS3 is in fact more difficult to develop games on given its proprietary Cell processor.

i agree. at least at this point in time, i think they are equal. i really think the PS3 has a little more headroom though, especially considering its newer.

Some of it's newer. The RSX is older than the Xenos is.


the 360's hardware is not capable of producing HDR levels higher than that of the PS3.It can if AA is on. the PS3 can only do integer based HDR if AA is on, which cannot reproduce the accurate color range of hardware base HDR.

Sorry but GRAW2 isn't a good example of A.I.

When a programmer puts down another system in that way he is exposing his insecurity in dealing with a different architecture. In other words dude dont' know jack about the cell.