84 réponses à ce sujet

[FunkBrotherDee]

We haven't seen much footage of the PS3 game and I'm getting worried. I've been on Neo-Gaf and one of the posters, who runs the psxextreme site, says the PS3 version has a pretty ****ty framerate and if your sensitive you should rent it first.
Doesn't sound too good but will still be playable.  And what is up with the Aus PS3 release date? The **** ? Aussies aren't second class world citizens.
http://www.neogaf.co...1&postcount=996

Modifié par FunkBrotherDee, 02 novembre 2009 - 03:08 .

[jom55]

firstly the ps3 version is the same as the xbox version which is apparently very good. secondly the graphics of the ps3 version are just slightly behind the pc but still better than the xbox. the only thing messed up with the ps3 version is tthe release dates.

[krol146]

jom55 wrote...

firstly the ps3 version is the same as the xbox version which is apparently very good. secondly the graphics of the ps3 version are just slightly behind the pc but still better than the xbox. t.

And you base this on what?

[Syrellaris]

who are you going to believe, some newbie poster from a unknown playstation website or the developers of the game itself.

[hazelam]

i've seen video of the ps3 version, looks pretty good to me.

the ps3 version is launching the same day as the other versions in the us.

it's clear that the delay in europe and australia is down to scee.

i'll be getting the ps3 version, just not sure when yet.

[BomimoDK]

krol146 wrote...

jom55 wrote...

firstly the ps3 version is the same as the xbox version which is apparently very good. secondly the graphics of the ps3 version are just slightly behind the pc but still better than the xbox. t.

And you base this on what?

chill brother, no need to nitpick a war.

[krol146]

BomimoDK wrote...

krol146 wrote...

jom55 wrote...

firstly the ps3 version is the same as the xbox version which is apparently very good. secondly the graphics of the ps3 version are just slightly behind the pc but still better than the xbox. t.

And you base this on what?

chill brother, no need to nitpick a war.

Not trying to, im actually curious.

[krol146]

Rezylarap wrote...

I assume his basis is on other PS3 games that show similar problems that are release on xbox 360 and ps3. Poor consistency with frame rate, washed out graphics, and load times

But he said that the PS3 version looks better, not the other way around.

Modifié par krol146, 01 novembre 2009 - 12:50 .

[Syrellaris]

Rezylarap wrote...

jom55 wrote...

firstly the ps3 version is the same as the xbox version which is apparently very good. secondly the graphics of the ps3 version are just slightly behind the pc but still better than the xbox. the only thing messed up with the ps3 version is tthe release dates.

Thats what bioware has told us. However, the xbox 360 uses 1 cpu, the ps3 uses 6 (or something). Game code has to be optimized for use on the ps3 as the 6 cpu 'core' is much different than the single cpu. Going from xbox to ps3 is harder than going from pc to mac

The ps3 uses 7 out of 8 cores, the 8th core is disabled. IBM who delivers these supercomputer chips only delivers the chip in that way to Sony. Considering enabling the 8th core, would make the console a super computer. However, since IBM only delivers cell cpu's to sony that have a fault in them (hence why only 7 out 8 is enabled). they always disable the core that has the fault. So its not a biggie. Each of these cores run parallel with eachother with a speed of 3.26 ghz. Creating a total of 218 gigaflops.

In return, 6 of those 7 working cores are used for gaming and 1 for the operating system. When developers start learning how to use this hardware over the years, the difference in games will show up if you compare them to other consoles.

As for the 360, it uses maximal 2 cores. 1 for the os and 1 for gaming.

[Flamin Jesus]

The 360 has and uses 3 cores, none of which is used exclusively for the micro-OS, anyway, raw CPU (or core) processing power isn't and never was the limiting factor of either console, the problem is the deplorable RAM and the (by todays standards) outdated graphics chip, both of which are actually slightly more problematic on the PS3, you can have ten thousand 'supercomputer cores' in a machine, and you'll certainly be able to use them to calculate prime numbers or decrypt files at a very high speed, but that's not the kind (and sort) of power that helps you develop a game.

[wrexingcrew]

Syrellaris (and jom55): the problem is that the PS3 isn't living up to that potential yet. Multiplat AAA titles in every side-by-side video I've seen = advantage 360. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's how it's been so far, and it's a little dangerous to just assume DA:O is going to be the turning point. The best explanations I've heard are 1) developers still don't have as much experience developing for the PS3 and 2) the memory architecture is disadvantageous. That's why I advise everyone I talk to about console vs console to wait and compare footage, particularly when dealing with a first-time PS3 developer (because it's either in-house or a port, and both options have risks). I have both systems, they both have some amazing exclusives, but I consistently opt for the 360 version when the game in question is multiplatform (and something I want for console in addition to or as opposed to PC).

EDIT: FlaminJesus has the technical side covered.

All that said, OP, I really doubt it'll be terrible. Bioware has pretty serious quality control.

Modifié par wrexingcrew, 01 novembre 2009 - 01:01 .

[xecollons]

Videos of PS3 version:

Modifié par xecollons, 01 novembre 2009 - 01:19 .

[aragfore03]

Multiplatform titles tend to have problems on the PS3. A lot of big name titles felt broken on their PS3 counterparts. That said, I wouldn't listen to just one random poster. Bioware's pretty good about this stuff.

[Ghandorian]

I think some people are expecting DA,O to have some newer graphics trick than say crysis because it came out after crysis. Those people are going to be disappointed. DA,O uses a purpose built engine that can run on a lot of PC's and does not have "Cutting Edge" shader intensive graphics.

[ironcreed2]

Well, I am getting both the 360 and the PS3 versions, so I will experience first hand the differences. However, I am betting that it will not be as dramatic as the guy over on GAF is making it out to be. He mainly sounds overly nit-picky about the framerate and for all he knows, the 360 version has frame drops at certain points in the game as well.

As for his comments on having worse graphics? Well, that is straight up BS, as there are numerous vidoes of both versions floating around and it is quite clear that the PS3 and 360 versions are damn near identical. Unless you are maybe one of those people who stand around obsessively staring at walls and blades of grass looking for imperfections and have a fit every time there is a slight bit of slowdown or pop-up present. I'm sorry, but this guy just comes off as the sort that would actually sit down with a magnifying glass and try to separate fly turds from ground black pepper if the opportunity presented itself.

Modifié par ironcreed2, 01 novembre 2009 - 01:36 .

[nick1061]

Bioware has assured us many many many times that the ps3 is very solid. Its supposed to have slightly better graphics and preformance than the xbox version. And there are videos of ps3 version in action ive seen them. just look harder. Main piont is relax everthing wil be ok =p.

[Syrellaris]

wrexingcrew wrote...

Syrellaris (and jom55): the problem is that the PS3 isn't living up to that potential yet. Multiplat AAA titles in every side-by-side video I've seen = advantage 360. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's how it's been so far, and it's a little dangerous to just assume DA:O is going to be the turning point. The best explanations I've heard are 1) developers still don't have as much experience developing for the PS3 and 2) the memory architecture is disadvantageous. That's why I advise everyone I talk to about console vs console to wait and compare footage, particularly when dealing with a first-time PS3 developer (because it's either in-house or a port, and both options have risks). I have both systems, they both have some amazing exclusives, but I consistently opt for the 360 version when the game in question is multiplatform (and something I want for console in addition to or as opposed to PC).

EDIT: FlaminJesus has the technical side covered.

All that said, OP, I really doubt it'll be terrible. Bioware has pretty serious quality control.

Well thats what i said. But im not going into a console to console talk, create a new thread for that if you want it lol.

@ Flaming Jesus. Your right, I forgot. The 360 has 3 cores. But its a standard cpu and just not as interesting a cell processor .

[wrexingcrew]

Syrellaris wrote...
But im not going into a console to console talk

Syrellaris wrote...
But its a
standard cpu and just not as interesting a cell processor .

Physician, heal thyself.

Yes, I think we all agree - OP, no need to be worried.  I really doubt it's terrible.  If you're concerned about that, just wait for actual professional reviews/side-to-side footage, and then evaluate.

[Towers76]

From the gameplay vids of the ps3 (of which I've seen 6 or so) version it looks exactly like the 360 version. Frankly I'm impressed that Bioware managed to get parity between both versions considering it's their first time developing on the PS3. I'm not sure how other ps3 owners feel but I for one am chomping at the bit to get my CE this Tuesday.

[foolish_sagacity]

In all honesty, I've never noticed a problem with any multi-platform game I've ever bought on the PS3. I might have only bought/played the good stuff, but I never ran into horrific lag or any problems with any PS3 title I've yet played.



I got pretty annoyed playing through Mass Effect on my brother's Xbox 360 though, that game felt really unoptimized. Alot of times the game would just pop in advanced textures when it was drawing a scene, so suddenly some Salarian would have smooth skin and then the bump-mapping would kick in and he'd have rough skin. So it's not like the 360 is god's gift to gamers either, it has troubles.

[Semajdiego]

kinda sucks about the delayed release date for the PS3.

[Luke eckel]

Flamin Jesus wrote...

The 360 has and uses 3 cores, none of which is used exclusively for the micro-OS, anyway, raw CPU (or core) processing power isn't and never was the limiting factor of either console, the problem is the deplorable RAM and the (by todays standards) outdated graphics chip, both of which are actually slightly more problematic on the PS3, you can have ten thousand 'supercomputer cores' in a machine, and you'll certainly be able to use them to calculate prime numbers or decrypt files at a very high speed, but that's not the kind (and sort) of power that helps you develop a game.

each core of the 360 is running at 3.2Ghz. I might be wrong i think it uses AMD and an ATI gc.