PSVita Uncharted 3 better graphics then 2 ? How does golden abyss compare

[thehunter01]

That video WAS ALL IN GAME, OK?

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/280466/features/full-uncharted-3-trailer-dissected/

Here is an article that says this, now i know pc has 10x the power of consoles but this below is still achievable with PS3 hardware- if you dont believe naughty dog or any of these sites, thats your problem.

So I repeat, for skeptics

This IS IN GAME

america did land on the moon

and Kennedy assassination wasn't a gov cover up

Uncharted 3′s Debut Trailer Uses In-Game Assets to Flabbergast Spectators

12/11/2010 Written by Jonathan Leack

When Naughty Dog released Uncharted and Uncharted 2, both became objects of inspiration for video game developers looking to push visual design to the next level. Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception debuted its first trailer at the VGAs today, and in a similar fashion people across the globe wonder how the series’ level of detail is so refined. So much, in-fact, that some have been saying that the recent trailer is all composed in CGI.

Naughty Dog has declared on Twitter that the debut trailer for Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception was all composed with in-game assets:

Yes, #UNCHARTED3 trailer was all from in-engine + actual gameplay. 11-1-11!!​

As if Uncharted 2: Among Thieves wasn’t visually stunning enough, Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception looks like another advancement in power. The lighting effects, facial animation, and cinematic qualities shown in the latest trailer are all arguably the best we’ve seen in the industry, and a solid addition to Naughty Dog’s expansive resume of games with outstanding presentations.

I made a massive post on this, but it became frankly way to big and way to detailed which isn't going to resolve this discussion.

The problem really here is, that you quote stuff and link stuff that only disprove your entire point. You specifically believe anything that a site quotes on top of it and link it towards your obvious preverence which happens a lot with sites that post in general also.

To quote your massive ridicilous out of orbid text:

Uncharted 3′s Debut Trailer Uses In-Game Assets to Flabbergast Spectators

Do you even know what assets mean?. it says absolute nothing.

Example:

the witcher 2 had assets of 2-4k resolutions, i can build a trailer with it with cgi characters on top of it? what has this to do with anything?

Worthless comment, and placed on such a level makes it incredible painful to even watch.

The next part:

Yes, #UNCHARTED3 trailer was all from in-engine + actual gameplay

in-engine + actual gameplay: so he basically confirms it was pushed through a PC and rendered frame for frame? if he means the trailer where you linked the picture with.

He never mentions that it got taken of the ps3 hardware directly. Therefore it empowers even more of my comments.

Besides that, i often see console gamers doing this link stuff from developers that are in there eyes highly rated. but in the common a bit longer graphical tech follower a joke in general. These people look right through all there big and nice words.

The same happened with that rage developer, while people often talk about him if he's somekind of graphical artist that is 1 of the best in the market and really his input should be taken really high, are just incredible wrong entirely. he''s just another developer that simple isn't pushing boundaries anymore.

People often places reality in a different aspect then they really are.

People often prefer about the cell if its somekind of alien technology that can magically enhance anything without having to sacrifice anything. Which isn''t true at all. The Cell is actually really limited technology through having to deal with tons of different solutions in order to push the same solution that for example current cpu's and even xbox360 cpu's do realitive easily.

Its like building something over 4 blocks and trying to divide them as good as possible and as effective as possible while you could just push everything inside 1 block and be done with it.

Its exactly as i mentioned earlier, its how hardware works. The cell isn''t a revolution on cpu architecture. the cell is in no way capable of pushing out a gpu solution on its own next towards it. It can only much like shared memory basically, share its resources more ideaal towards gpu's in order to enhance it. but that isn''t really going to come free at all. it gives the cpu a massive hit in general.

There is a reason why nobody adopted the cell on market / business level besides a handfull of company''s that simple ditch the solutions atm.

The cell is what it is. it needs all the stuff you placed out in order to push anything relevant. The only difference with cell vs xeon is. that the cell is indeed a higher performance cpu, but its a incredible difficult architecture to work with.

The hyperbole about not needing a gpu at all is jsut ridicilous. and everybody that agree''d with this back in that day should be punished really. Thats just offensive rather.

Anyway we can talk the whole day about this and agree to disagree. the fact stays it is what it is. hyperboling developers and worthless sites quoting incorrect or manupilating comments + giving it a spin of yourself on top of it doesn''t prove anything.

Sony is bound to use the cell in there next console if they wanna have any BC with ps3 solution. I'm sure that the next cell cpu is going to be a beast if sony is pushing a solid gpu next towards it. But if its going to even come towards the new upcoming cpu lineup that probably is going to be used by xbox720, i'm not even sure about that.

 

[thehunter01]

That trailer was all in game. Naughty dog confirmed it on twitter and lots of sites talked about how amazing it was that it was in game I repeat NOT IN GAME. I can give you the link for all these sites

Then he means something different like the gameplay parts of when it jumps into a building, not the actual opening trailer. If they said that they are layers simple. and i cant see them doing that.

Its a ridicilous thing to say as developer really. Or either they are pushed by sony to say random crap like that then.

its just not possible.

 

[thehunter01]

You realize that uncharted 2 has the highest polygon count for any characters and its on ps3. All cutscenes from uncharted 2 are in game and the 360 hasn't produced anything on that level. All im saying is that the cell + gpu > 360 gpu+ xenon. If a game is made on 360 and ps3 and you build each from the ground up, and spend two years on the 360 version you will max it out, if you spend 3 on the ps3 version it will look better, john carmack has said many times that ps3 has more power but only exclusives or spending a lot of time on the ps3 will push it far past the 360, because the cell has a ppu double thread core, 7 spu's, and the spe's, its very complicated because they will have to segment certain parts on to each spu. But, the cell is essentially another gpu, and you can just use the ppu for most cpu parts, and use the rest of the cell as a very powerful gpu.

Sony was going to only put the cell in the ps3 because of it's power but they threw in a gpu last second to make it easier for dev's

Also the gpu is not way worse then the 360's the ps3 does 24 pixel pipelines with 8 vertex pipelines compared to 360's 48 unified pipelines, the 360 gpu is not way better, the ps3 gpu does some things better actually, But ps3's cell(cpu/gpu) is 3x as powerful as the 360's cpu

Also many 3rd party dev's have said ps3 simply has more power and more potential, i dont know why your spinning their words.

Best quote------------------http://www.psu.com/THQ-Dev-says- qu...s-on-PS3-than-360 quot;-News--a0003291-p0.php

join carmack has no influence in the graphical section. his work was only interesting when doom 3 arrived. after his latest reveal of rage he isn't even taken slightly serieuse anymore. His hyperbole about how good it looks and how incredible it is to push out 60fps is just even more ridiclous on top of it. Specially when you look actually at the game itself.

The PS3 isn''t more powerful. The whole powerful is a hyperbole word that can only be correctly said when the ps3 is entirely domination another console. which isn''t the case. it has its strong / weak points simple as that.
If he said that, my respect for him has even lower even more.
The SPu''s Spe''s whatever els the crap they call it inside the cell cpu, are highly needed through not being able to multitask well. it all sounds fancy and exclusive but it really isn't. its a different architecture.
Its how the cell functions like i explained a bit above ( if i didn''t removed it )

the bolded parts about gpu, is ridicilous. They didn't placed a gpu on the last part as something extra. they needed too. The cell is in nowhere capable to emulate all the graphical demand at all with just the cpu. They would have crippled the ps3 massively. pure hyperbole really. The fact they didn''t pushed a capable gpu pushed them into this solution. But the cell basically already made them bankrupt.

the 3x as powerful is a ridicilous and unbased statement i ever saw. You have no idea what unifeid pipelines mean at all, you basically say yourself in that comment that the xbox360 gpu = stronger and then say the ps3 = 3x stronger.

Weird thing to say really.

The spinning part is exactly what you are doing, and where i pinpointed you out on it earlier. The reason that you react with such a comment doesn't make it much more useful to go on with this discussion as you simple do not wanna hear the reality.

 

[thehunter01]

Here is another link where carmack says development is easier on 360 but the ps3 has more total processing power

http://n4g.com/news/824349/john-carmack-thinks-the-ps3-is-the-second-best-console-ever-made/com

By the looks of it, it seems your a 360 guy, but there is simply no game on 360 that rivals UC3, GOW3, KZ3, heavy rain. Also why are all 360 exclusives in 540p- halo reach, alan wake, halo 3.

The only 360 game that comes close is crysis 2 for the nice lighting, but once the game was out people realized that most of crysis 2's lighting was pre baked-Crysis 2 on console has no GI at all. It’s a fake obtained with light globes (few light globes) put around the environment on purpose. The rest of the illumination is achieved by a unique directional light that act as a sun light- lot user., not the lighting they said it was also lens of truth said that kz3 ran at a steady 30fps frame rate, and crysis 2 dropped to 15 fps at times, and kz3 was 720p( c2 was 540p) has 0 screen tear and had higher res textures. They are a known site that usually picks 360 in head to heads but atleast they realize the truth. Also Digital foundry said that kz3 was graphics king, and so did Game informer

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/2/

Let me repeat myself, i never said that the xbox360 has more horsepower then the cell. I never said the ps3 was weaker then a xbox360. You are overreaction on reactions.

The cell is stronger then the xeon if you spend the additional resources on it, the gpu isn''t and the cell isn't going to save the gpu here. The reason why its hard to push comparisons = because both consoles have strenghts like i indicated and weaknesses. There is no winner.

You are taking comments from developers way to high up.

Again i''m not a 360 guy, i never had one and i never will. Because its basically a crippled PC box where i have no interest in. My current pc hardware basically runs around 20+ faster around the xbox360. i have 2x gtx580''s which both push around 2billion polygons. The xbox360/ps3 are just a fraction of the power of my machine really and i have absolute no interest on watching lackbusting graphics. I'm mostly sitting with my PC in benchmarks tho.

crysis 2 was entirely a half assed job, the PC version of the game was discustion to say the least. hell even far cry / crysis 1 looked better on the PC with mods even while it pushed lesser polygons as trade off.

Crysis 2 is just a software example of how a developer optimizes code. crysis 2 was clearly builded around limitations on consoles and holded back to be projected equally ( or almost ) on both consoles. If the ps3 had more performance i hardly think they would push it inside it.

It doens't really matter tho the game was half assed job and i'm not interested to talk about software with this comment. The hardware is where the facts are stored. the software is just a solution that works with it.

While everybody was hyperboling about how incredible awsome the 3DS gpu capabilitys where and everybody wanted to see what developers could push with it, it was basically already obvious towards me when i heard the rumored specs. There isn''t much on my site to be suprised on graphical detail as i have seen it all.

Consoles are just old generation hardware that can be coded towards the metal, other then that the hardware for example in the wii u announced = ancient hardware in my eyes already.

About the other part that you placed out with a comment, about how uncharted is the graphical king and killzone 3. thats just ridicilous to say really.

The games get praised because of how it gets pushed on ancient hardware. Lets not kid ourself the cell cpu = ancient / the xeon on the xbox360 = not even worth 5 euro's anymore its trash in PC land.

A sub hd game without filtering, low draw distances / having to cheat every effect in order to push decent solutions on big screens = not interseting for most people.

How good some games can look for console gamers. They are just pathetic results of spending millions on optimizing for basically nothing.

The PC game from alan wake for example would have runned at the time release on my pc on a full 100+ fps with everything on and max detailed for sure. The xbox360 was a joke to see realy. the resolution was horrible. simple because they needed the additional resources.

All with all, i will stop with this discussion tho. its going nowhere.

I would advice to you, to think about what you link and post about specifical parts. not everything should be taken in a perspective as you would like to see it. I''m realistic. I''m not going to talk hyperbolic about hardware that simple isn''t able to push solutions like that. Its always fun to hear it hasn't reached its max etc and new games look better etc. but in the reality. The year after a console release no matter how high end it is, its ancient on pc land.

While console gamers dream for gtx 580 in there next console. I'm already looked out on the 2 of them inside my PC and will replace them for 2x gtx 680''s or the ati versions ( depends on which one is better ) when they come out.

about the killzone 3 thing, what did you think? its a exclusive that isn''t needing to go multiplatform. Its obvious through the limited PC version that crysis 2 was created to look equally on all gaming solutions. Therefor its highlily not pushing the ps3 in specific area''s even while they say it does, or even on the xbox360.

its good possible that the xbox360 cpu runs on its max solution, but the gpu is running at a 80% solution. while the ps3 gpu+ cell cpu is stressing out entirely. much like i stated. it doesn't say anything. and its exactly why i skip a hell lot of those gaming sites with there trash comparisons or trash articles that say absolute nothing.

I'm already into the graphical department and cpu department ( hell all hardware parts basically ) from the beginning of the dedicated videocards. and frankly the amount of trash thats on the internet and talk from developers that are entirely off the chart is sometimes stunning.

I feel that i need to repeat myself a lot while you keep throwing out the same information where i yet again need to push out the same reactions. I will therefore cut of the discussion because it has no use to go further into it. As you somehow seem to take things up personally which wasn''t my intention.

Do not think i hate your or something or i got something against you, i just didn''t share the same opinion on your reaction. therefore we disagree on this point and on another topic or comment i do look neutral on that topic towards other people and your points.

So dont take it up personally or anything from what i say, as i somehow start to think that you do. which isn't going to enhance the forum community and discussions.

Anyway because of various reasons i already indicated in reactions its obvious that i''m going to pull the plug and stop this discussion from my part. Its going nowhere and it starts to become incredible boring to keep repeating stuff that i already mentioned and simple are not taken into account.

anyway i rest my case.

 

[equilibrium75]

Let me repeat myself, i never said that the xbox360 has more horsepower then the cell. I never said the ps3 was weaker then a xbox360. You are overreaction on reactions.

The cell is stronger then the xeon if you spend the additional resources on it, the gpu isn''t and the cell isn't going to save the gpu here. The reason why its hard to push comparisons = because both consoles have strenghts like i indicated and weaknesses. There is no winner.

You are taking comments from developers way to high up.

Again i''m not a 360 guy, i never had one and i never will. Because its basically a crippled PC box where i have no interest in. My current pc hardware basically runs around 20+ faster around the xbox360. i have 2x gtx580''s which both push around 2billion polygons. The xbox360/ps3 are just a fraction of the power of my machine really and i have absolute no interest on watching lackbusting graphics. I'm mostly sitting with my PC in benchmarks tho.

crysis 2 was entirely a half assed job, the PC version of the game was discustion to say the least. hell even far cry / crysis 1 looked better on the PC with mods even while it pushed lesser polygons as trade off.

Crysis 2 is just a software example of how a developer optimizes code. crysis 2 was clearly builded around limitations on consoles and holded back to be projected equally ( or almost ) on both consoles. If the ps3 had more performance i hardly think they would push it inside it.

It doens't really matter tho the game was half assed job and i'm not interested to talk about software with this comment. The hardware is where the facts are stored. the software is just a solution that works with it.

While everybody was hyperboling about how incredible awsome the 3DS gpu capabilitys where and everybody wanted to see what developers could push with it, it was basically already obvious towards me when i heard the rumored specs. There isn''t much on my site to be suprised on graphical detail as i have seen it all.

Consoles are just old generation hardware that can be coded towards the metal, other then that the hardware for example in the wii u announced = ancient hardware in my eyes already.

About the other part that you placed out with a comment, about how uncharted is the graphical king and killzone 3. thats just ridicilous to say really.

The games get praised because of how it gets pushed on ancient hardware. Lets not kid ourself the cell cpu = ancient / the xeon on the xbox360 = not even worth 5 euro's anymore its trash in PC land.

A sub hd game without filtering, low draw distances / having to cheat every effect in order to push decent solutions on big screens = not interseting for most people.

How good some games can look for console gamers. They are just pathetic results of spending millions on optimizing for basically nothing.

The PC game from alan wake for example would have runned at the time release on my pc on a full 100+ fps with everything on and max detailed for sure. The xbox360 was a joke to see realy. the resolution was horrible. simple because they needed the additional resources.

All with all, i will stop with this discussion tho. its going nowhere.

I would advice to you, to think about what you link and post about specifical parts. not everything should be taken in a perspective as you would like to see it. I''m realistic. I''m not going to talk hyperbolic about hardware that simple isn''t able to push solutions like that. Its always fun to hear it hasn't reached its max etc and new games look better etc. but in the reality. The year after a console release no matter how high end it is, its ancient on pc land.

While console gamers dream for gtx 580 in there next console. I'm already looked out on the 2 of them inside my PC and will replace them for 2x gtx 680''s or the ati versions ( depends on which one is better ) when they come out.

about the killzone 3 thing, what did you think? its a exclusive that isn''t needing to go multiplatform. Its obvious through the limited PC version that crysis 2 was created to look equally on all gaming solutions. Therefor its highlily not pushing the ps3 in specific area''s even while they say it does, or even on the xbox360.

its good possible that the xbox360 cpu runs on its max solution, but the gpu is running at a 80% solution. while the ps3 gpu+ cell cpu is stressing out entirely. much like i stated. it doesn't say anything. and its exactly why i skip a hell lot of those gaming sites with there trash comparisons or trash articles that say absolute nothing.

I'm already into the graphical department and cpu department ( hell all hardware parts basically ) from the beginning of the dedicated videocards. and frankly the amount of trash thats on the internet and talk from developers that are entirely off the chart is sometimes stunning.

I feel that i need to repeat myself a lot while you keep throwing out the same information where i yet again need to push out the same reactions. I will therefore cut of the discussion because it has no use to go further into it. As you somehow seem to take things up personally which wasn''t my intention.

Do not think i hate your or something or i got something against you, i just didn''t share the same opinion on your reaction. therefore we disagree on this point and on another topic or comment i do look neutral on that topic towards other people and your points.

So dont take it up personally or anything from what i say, as i somehow start to think that you do. which isn't going to enhance the forum community and discussions.

Anyway because of various reasons i already indicated in reactions its obvious that i''m going to pull the plug and stop this discussion from my part. Its going nowhere and it starts to become incredible boring to keep repeating stuff that i already mentioned and simple are not taken into account.

anyway i rest my case.

I dont take it personal, i have enough money to just upgrade my pc, and it would be better then consoles, but i dont care i like playing on consoles even though i game a little on my pc. But, to say that john carmack doesn't know anything anymore, that makes you sound a little to proud. You talk like your a god and say that devs dont know what they're talking about, but you have never used the cell or developed for it or 360.

Also your spinning naughty dog's words they probably just released that statement thinking that people would know they mean in game on PS3. They didn't know that people would spin their words. Also they did the same thing with the snow scene in UC2. It looks almost as good as the sand scene, and the snow scene ended up in the game using in game real time ps3 graphics.

Im sorry but why would I believe you over dev's, or other people that I know, that know just as much about tech as you. We can agree on one thing-- crytek left pc gamers in crysis 2 and it ended up crappy, and crysis 1 was much better looking

 

[awesomeness]

You realize that uncharted 2 has the highest polygon count for any characters and its on ps3. All cutscenes from uncharted 2 are in game and the 360 hasn't produced anything on that level.

does pre-rendered cut scenes also count as in game graphics??
uncharted 2 cut scenes ver all pre-rendered and not real-time!!

 

[equilibrium75]

does pre-rendered cut scenes also count as in game graphics??
uncharted 2 cut scenes ver all pre-rendered and not real-time!!

Absolutely, because just about every site confirmed iit and there was a whole discussion about this on one site, anyways let me explain. UC2 cutscenes are in game engine and can be done in realtime but they pre-rendered them so that people could watch a cutscene while the game was loading, creating a seamless game, where you wouldn't have to wait for each level to load, thehunter01 doesn't believe that the uc3 trailer is in game engine, but i wouldn't listen to him, since just about every site had an article talking about that video and how it was all in game engine,
Read this
http://www.tqcast.com/2010/12/11/na...ailer-was-all-from-in-engine-actual-gameplay/
or this
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/280466/features/full-uncharted-3-trailer-dissected/

 

[thehunter01]

Absolutely, because just about every site confirmed iit and there was a whole discussion about this on one site, anyways let me explain. UC2 cutscenes are in game engine and can be done in realtime but they pre-rendered them so that people could watch a cutscene while the game was loading, creating a seamless game, where you wouldn't have to wait for each level to load, thehunter01 doesn't believe that the uc3 trailer is in game engine, but i wouldn't listen to him, since just about every site had an article talking about that video and how it was all in game engine,
Read this
http://www.tqcast.com/2010/12/11/na...ailer-was-all-from-in-engine-actual-gameplay/
or this
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/280466/features/full-uncharted-3-trailer-dissected/

have some self-respect and stop trash talking me with nonsense. What a garbage statement you got there dude.

Stop bending reality and even my comments

 

[equilibrium75]

have some self-respect and stop trash talking me with nonsense. What a garbage statement you got there dude.

Stop bending reality and even my comments

Im not bending reality and you can have your opinion but to call john carmack someone that has no influence in graphics, he created the fps genre, and id tech is always cutting edge, he knows everything about graphics and technology, and doom 3 was amazing when it came out, also he has been working on rage for 5 years, so it may look incredible. He knows more about graphics and gaming then anyone else, also its annoying when pc people talk down consoles all the time. Sure, i can upgrade my pc, but i prefer gaming on consoles. Also console graphics are so close to hitting the graphical wall that pc graphics only look a little better, in terms of realism(i know that pc can be 10x as powerful as consoles, but we are already so close to a graphical wall that the difference isn't gigantic.

I dont want to trash talk you, but in the same way you shouldn't trash talk devs, game sites, and john carmack. We dont know everything, and ps3 developers obviously know more than us about ps3