Believes this is an opinion shared by all developers who have been working on all the platforms.
Gamasutra recently caught up with Hitoshi Hasegawa, the new leader of Team Ninja following the highly publicised departure of Tomonobu Itagaki. While Hasegawa certainly doesn't currently carry the same superstar popularity of Itagaki, he's certainly making an effort to get noticed.
Speaking of the PlayStation 3, Hasegawa said: "For the PlayStation 3, we do not believe that we've seen the fullest of its potential from any standpoint: from a developer standpoint, and also a consumer standpoint - and just in products in general.
"The developers have been releasing products, but there is a bigger potential. There is greater potential, and we see that possibility the most in the PlayStation 3. It's going to be up to us developers and Sony to make sure that that does happen."
He didn't stop with there, going on to describe the PS3 as the most powerful of all the current platforms.
"For any developer that's been working on all of the platforms that are available today, I think they would agree that the PlayStation 3 is the most powerful system out there," claimed Hasegawa.
Could this mean Team Ninja will begin to offer increased support for the PS3, having previously only released Ninja Gaiden: Sigma for the console?
Do you agree that the PS3 is the most powerful console? Let us know in the comments section below.
[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]
FantasyMeister wrote at 13:07 on 04 November 2008
Personally I'm expecting Sony 1st party titles to start showing a bigger gap between what the PS3 can do compared to what the 360 can do. I think potentially the PS3 is more powerful, but it's all for naught if developers can't/won't make use of it.
Whilst I wait for that to happen I'm quite happy with the 360 in the meantime, and the big gamble for Sony is that if in a couple of years time they start to really show the untapped power of the PS3 with a couple of 2011 blockbuster titles that gobsmack everyone Microsoft could possibly counter it by announcing the Nextbox.
Sony trying to stick to a 10-year cycle could be a huge risk for them. Luck is on their side though, they used the PS3 to help win the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD format war and seeing as they pulled that off so well I wouldn't bet against them.
dav2612 wrote at 13:18 on 04 November 2008
I thought it was wide-spread knowledge that the PS3 was more powerful but perhaps it is time the developers stopped telling us that and actually proved it.
dudester wrote at 13:25 on 04 November 2008
Fantasymeister theres a big risk with switching to a newer next box as you put it.
1 Economy not great now, 2 years time will still be recovering.
2 Have to get people to buy the thing just because 22 million have a 360 theres no guarantees people will move over to the new system see ps2 to ps3.
3 Then theres the developers who by this time would again have to develop separately for nextbox and ps3 or suffer poor ports like we have seen from ps3.
Mog wrote at 13:27 on 04 November 2008
@dav
*nods head in agreement*
dreamhunk wrote at 13:57 on 04 November 2008
Not more powerful than the PC. Next year hardware for pc will be light years head any console as platform.
pblive wrote at 14:04 on 04 November 2008
But will need the year after's PC to run next year's games ;)
xboxlive wrote at 14:17 on 04 November 2008
do i care about whats better i just wish poeple would shut up with all the shit and just play what thay buy.
GDMONEY wrote at 16:26 on 04 November 2008
Hell no the 360 is the ,ost powerful of the consoles and i know this for a fact.
GMONEY wrote at 16:31 on 04 November 2008
People believe the ps3 is more powerful because of its processor but thats the most stupidest thing i have ever heard. Processing the not make powerful graphics. If you all dont know the word prcess means the gathering of information. What difference would would this make if the information is little. Its impossible for a machine with a weaker GPU to make better graphics than a machine with a more powerful GPU. Processing is secondary
DaveBG wrote at 16:53 on 04 November 2008
The PS3 is only slightly better in one area verses the Xbox360 and the Xbox 360 is slightly better than the PS3 in another area.
There's so little in it.
Then you compare to a PC and relaise there is no comparison.
The PS3 is basically an ancient Nvidia 7800/7900 GPU.
It's stoneage tech, even with a Cell propping it up.
GMONEY wrote at 16:58 on 04 November 2008
I agree DabeBG, people beleive the games will get graphically better but the truth is the ps3 has reached it graphical limit (actually quite a while now). The only thing that can make the games look any better is the type of graphic engine used and the art design, nothing else. Unlocking the Cell will do nothing.
Nxs wrote at 16:59 on 04 November 2008
Does any of this crap matter? Really? What do people buy consoles for? To play games! It does not make one bit of difference if one console is better than the other if there are no games for them that people want to play!
I keep hearing the PS3 has all this power but, every review I read and every game I have played that has came out for both the PS3 and 360, the PS3 has framerate issues or worse. What good is all that power if you can't play a damn game on it without issue? :D
GMONEY wrote at 17:22 on 04 November 2008
I agree Nxs. Instead of people investigating why this is the case they blame devolopers or say its just a port but its not the developers fault. I know y the ps3 games are not equal and its because of memory. I knew the ps3 reached its limits when they started caching games to hard drive. Cachung is a devolopers trick to get more memory than they actually have. Lets imagine that you have 200MB information streched across 50kilometers of land. Your system refers to RAM to access this info. Because you have a 200MB of video RAM this will all be loaded in at once. Lets imagine you have 100MB of RAM (this is where caching comes in), it would be impossible to access this info, or is it? Normally info comes in at a slow speed this is why games load, but cached info takes place inless than a second. What developers do to get the 100MB RAM card to access 200MB of info is to set up a caching point. When the 100MB card reach almost full potential (lets say 95-98MB RAM) it deletes info before it (95-0) and caches in the other info ( 96 and up) very fast so it would appear as the the information was always present. And this is easily acheived because you never see the beggining and the end of a stage at once. Youwould always have to go around a corner or enter a door. So while you are progressing through the level things are being deleted. Its called optimizing. Most games developed whether console or pc are done with 512MB RAM ps3 falls short of this. Thats y most ps3 games are cached to hard driver, it lacking memory.lacking memory.
To clear alot of things up there is no such thing as a poor port. If you guys don't already know all games are made on PC first even though consoles have dev kits (these are just here to give developers an idea of system limitations, and to give them an idea of which code to write the game in) then they put onto consoles. Memory is more of an issue than code. Without code the video would be still pictures, code is basically just for movement ask any developer. It only changes based on exactly what you want in terms of interaction. Antianilizing takes up memory (this varies) and rendering a game in high def takes up memory (eg.720p takes up 32MB RAM). Although its called video RAM sound is also a part of it. So out of 256MB RAM you would minus 32MB for 720p and in most cases 7 - 10 MB for sound leaving in most cases any where from 214 - 217MB for on screen visuals. Do the same with the 512MB RAM and you are left with 470 - 473MB RAM, which is actually more than twice what the amount. People think the 360 has twice the RAM but from a developer's point it has more. That is y ps3 games are cached. If you want to go 1080p thats even worse because it requires more RAM. That is y in most cases 360 seems to handle 1080p better. Developers need RAM and lots of it.
G MAN wrote at 18:18 on 04 November 2008
@ GMONEY.
if all that stuff you just wrote was correct, then I must ask what the problem is. You say it has failed because it hasnt got 500mb of ram, then go on to explain in detail how developers can get round this with no problem ???. is there a disadvantage to what you just wrote?
You are also very missleading as the ps3 does have 500mb of ram (just split in to two lots of 250, with the 250 part to the GPU having much faster speed than normal ram).
by the way, isnt GT prologue and killzone utilizing the cell for graphics, herd something somewhere about the gpu just texturizing in killzone 2. they look like they are doing ok...... Actually this is all a load of crap. All the developers are saying that its the more powerfull console if coded for the correct way (all though difficult at this ealy stage of its life cycle), but it is starting to show with some recent games. ....
Trouble is, theres so much missleading rubbish on the net, im not sure what i just said is deffinately correct.
Also got to love it when some goon comes on a ps3 web site/artical boasting how pc's will eat it for breakfast.... .."my ferrari is well faster than your fiat punto".... would be good if you could get a pc with similar spec as a ps3 even at the moment, but I still think you would be paying a small fortune, deffo if you had a bluray drive.
GMAN wrote at 18:45 on 04 November 2008
@ GMONEY,
Dont know if this will interest you, but heres a link.... IBM rendering a moving scene under linux (no access to RSX ) all this is just rendered from the cell. Now its not as good as a dedicated graphics processor (yes processor) i will admit, but could this mean that the cell will be able to perform some of the tasks ment for the RSX. Asisting the GPU if you like. If this is the case, then its not as simple as you have put it above. ..
Now im no tech head so correct me if im wrong (hopefully with a constructive reply that I can learn from or gives me another angle on the subject :-)
link......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFO...eature=related
GMONEY wrote at 18:46 on 04 November 2008
G MAN you r very wrong . Plenty developers also say 360 is stronger. And the Cell has nothing to o with how good KILL Zone looks. Its the art design and the graphics engine. Game developing is split 2 ways Video RAM and Coding. 256MB of the ps3 is dedicated to CPU which is only for coding. The other 256MB is for video RAM. And if you were to refer to what i wrote earlier i explained how caching makes it possible for developers to get around the lack of memory. If processing has so much to do with graphics tell me y the recommended requirements for Crysis PC only ask for a 2.2 GH Duo processor (which means 2) and 2 Gigs of RAM, and a G-Force 8800 (which has 768MB video RAM). Why so much RAM and so little processing? The 360 has 3 2.2GH processors the ps3 has 1 3.2GH and seven powerful SPE's. The 2 consoles have more processing power than most gaming PC but yet the graphics are not as good. If it was about processing the ps3 should be more powerful than most PCs.
GMONEY wrote at 18:50 on 04 November 2008
That link only explains how crappy a game would look without its GPU GMAN
GMONEY wrote at 18:56 on 04 November 2008
You said it GMAN the GPU does texturizing. So the better the GPU the better the texturizing and because high def takes up memory as well as antianalizing does because the 360 has a better GPU with alot more memory it can make smoother games.
[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]