Ps3 Hand-on Report


Alpha2 posted on Feb 12 2006 at 01:41 PM said:
...dosent seem to be anything there.

It takes a while to load but it's well worth the waiting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
in the last hour I've only been able to read the first page, it hasnt sounded too far fetched yet, but I'll keep my eyes open for something to call bullshit on.
 
Seems fair enough. Although I do wish they'd reiterate the point that visual quality has more to do with the skill of the artists than it does the tech. Early PS3 games may be comparable to their 360 counterparts, but I doubt many studios have the man power, the budget or the sheer skill to really push either piece of hardware yet. Comparisons are pointless; wait a few years and see which is the more capable.
 
Although I do wish they'd reiterate the point that visual quality has more to do with the skill of the artists than it does the tech

...yeah they only say it 4 times.

After reading it, it does sound like a fair assesment of the PS3's potential. Espcially when they say specifically say killzone level graphics arnt happening but MGS4 is a reality. There's no real hyperbole in this article and I dont get the feeling they're shilling forany particular system just reporting things they've been told and making observations based on readily availible material.

Though truth be told, looking at the videos on their site such as the indepth MGS4 video with Kojima changing the lighting on Snake and Otakon on the fly on a dev station, They could have come to these conclusions easily without this supposed "secrete access" they claim to have been given. Attend enough industry speechs at cons first hand and take home all the early production goodies and anyone could say much of the same things they did.
 
Well okay, it's more helpful to point out those... points... though. You know, just to enlighten others who might not have caught on. Saying people are telling lies dosent carry as much weight unless you can state the truth to contradict their lies.
 
I'm not sure how much I can say without breaking NDAs, unlike those "developers" that the article authors apparently spoke to who don't care about NDAs. Two points are that serious developers are not going to use the OpenGL-like functionality, and the hardware is not yet final.
 
Alpha2 posted on Feb 13 2006 at 03:19 AM said:
Although I do wish they'd reiterate the point that visual quality has more to do with the skill of the artists than it does the tech
...yeah they only say it 4 times.

Uhh...where exactly? I only counted two, and one was rather vague.

Considering the subject of the article, this should really be the overriding statement. But then again, that might ruin the point of their little attention-grabbing exercise....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I can get the site to work again I'll try and quote them...


the overall visual difference it makes will depend a lot on the developer's skill, and how much time and money the publisher spends on a game."

Supposedly from the "source", This one is kinda roundabout but it does still technically mean it's not just the machine that makes the game.

It's certainly obvious this machine is not "twice" as powerful as 360, let alone a generational leap ahead. But the gap could become bigger: "Realistically, as libraries and experience with both machines grow, I think the PS3 will start showing things the 360 will choke at," offers the source. "But Sony will have to make available to us libraries and new routines for that to happen - something they've been severely lacking at so far."

Okay maybe this one is a little open ti interpretation but it seems to me that the "source" is saying they could do amazing thigns given time as long as they get the right materials with which to do so. Once again this places the resulting games in the hands of people, not machinery... although I guess it would require THIS machine since that's being disscussed here.

the increase in power means that skilled artists become more important; games will look incredible thanks to the skilled artists."

This one is a more blatant declaration by one of the devs they claimed to speak to.

Reaching anywhere near MGS4 standards - let alone impossible Killzone standards - is still going to be tough for everyone but the most elite developers, and achieving photo-realistic scenes is as much about committed creators as raw power.

This one comes at the end as a comment about filling a 50Gb disk with content but still pretty much means that it's going to require hard working devs to take advantage of the machine.


That's how I count 4, maybe not the most obvious but that's what I took from the article.
 
What good exactly is a "hands on" review of hardware that is "approximating" the performance of the PS3? (or anything for that matter).

Gee where has the world heard this BS before? I'm looking in your direction Sony...

When I see a production unit in a kiosk, I'll believe.
 
Not that I agree with any of this non final hardware demonstration buisness, but I'd assume the differance between the aproximations we've seen in the past and the stuff we're being shown now is that they weren't playable ones back then. Even if Devs might be showing off half finished games on a dev box or test station atleast it's not a prerendered cinema made to look like a real game.
 
Alpha2 posted on Feb 14 2006 at 01:36 AM said:
That's how I count 4, maybe not the most obvious but that's what I took from the article.

Well...uhh...not exactly the most convincing evidence but I'll accept it on the grounds that it still doesn't disprove my point. A few sentances in a five page article won't change the fact that they focussed on the 'PS3 underperforms' aspect and convienently glossed over a few of the less sensational but much more logical arguments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I think we all pretty much expect it to under perform what we've been told by sony, but then again what system dosen't fail to meet the loafty goals set by their respective companies.
 
A friend of mine works for IBM on the cell processor for PS3 and he says that the processor totally lives up to the hype. Example, a PC with 2 7800 GTXs ran this benchmark at 11 fps and the Cell (alone w/o a fancy gpu) ran the same benchmark at 85 fps. Amazing. Still though, i'll believe it when i see it.
 
tmcleroy posted on Feb 20 2006 at 05:58 AM said:
A friend of mine works for IBM on the cell processor for PS3 and he says that the processor totally lives up to the hype. Example, a PC with 2 7800 GTXs ran this benchmark at 11 fps and the Cell (alone w/o a fancy gpu) ran the same benchmark at 85 fps. Amazing. Still though, i'll believe it when i see it.

The Cell has the raw power as it's a massive vector processor. But in actual aplications it might be hard to use it efficiently. Its memory/caches accesses must be handled by a programmer and having 8 (or more?) independed cores inside aren't making things easier too.

It will be probably hit and miss with Cell. Some things will be totally awesome on the PS3 where some other just average.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top