Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PS3 Oblivion Approaching PC Quality Visuals

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the skingrad-never-looked-so-good dept.

PlayStation (Games) 242

fistfullast33l writes "After taking a beating in Gamespot's side by side Comparison of Xbox 360 and PS3 graphics, Playstation 3 owners may finally have something to hold over the 360 fans. Both Gamespot and IGN have previews posted yesterday that talk up the graphics and performance improvements over the 360 version. Load times and texture quality and draw distance have been improved, as well as 'new shaders dedicated to rendering the foreground cleanly with sharper details, so rocky landscapes now have craggy appearances instead of smooth, non-distinct surfaces,' according to IGN. They end with the ultimate hype, 'screens from the PS3 version should approach those from high end PCs running Oblivion, which is an impressive feat.' How is this possible? Gamespot reports that 'Oblivion will make extensive use of the PS3's hard drive by caching multiple gigabytes of data, which seemed to help with load times from what we saw.' While there are no official reports of this making it into the new 360/PC expansion Shivering Isles, a rumor on the Gamespot preview says that 1up might have the scoop."

cancel ×

242 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh... (1, Insightful)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924120)

They've had over a year to tweak it for the PS3.

What did you expect?

Re:Uh... (2, Insightful)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924424)

Yeah, and who really cares anyway? Ok, so they got a game to look good on PS3. That's what it's SUPPOSED to do. It's not like people are going to be like, "HOLY CRAP! Now that Oblivion will look good on PS3 I've GOT TO GET ONE!" Wiis are selling because they have something fun to offer. I can play Oblivion on my PC or Xbox360 already. I can't play Wii bowling on my PC with my buddies.

Re:Uh... (0)

Trogre (513942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924868)

What a silly comment. How long do you think they had to tweak Halo for the XBox?

Re:Uh... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924972)

what are YOU talking about?? the GP is making the point that a practically finished game, for all intents and purposes, with an extra year of time to put into the graphics engine, is OBVIOUSLY going to look better. If they had rereleased it for 360 right now, it would look better too.


what in the world does this have to do with Halo, an original game that was a launch title..?

Re:Uh... (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925354)

Halo was under development for a very long time before Microsoft bought Bungie. But they still had to port it to the xbox and optimize it before launch.

Re:Uh... (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925380)

What does that have to do with Oblivion on the PS3 getting an extra year of optimization over the 360?

who cares about graphics (-1, Offtopic)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924134)

Meanwhile, the Wii is continuing to sell like hotcakes. Current numbers that i've seen show Wii sales way higher than PS3, and about on par with Xbox 360, which is pretty good considering you can't just walk into a store and buy a Wii like you can with a 360. If they had enough Wiis they would surely eclipse 360 sales.

Re:who cares about graphics (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924196)

I care. If I wanted last-gen graphics technology, I would go out and purchase a PS2 or an Xbox, not a platform whose only redeeming factor is a motion control gimmick and for which the most popular games are existing franchises and tech demos. You can talk all you want about the Wii being novel, I'd rather have the most powerful console on the planet.

Seriously, all you fucking wii zealots can shut up now. We get the idea.

Re:who cares about graphics (2, Interesting)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924344)

I do. My Wii will sit alongside my ps3, once the Wii is available and the ps3 is more like $400. I'm skipping the MS thing.

Re:who cares about graphics (2, Informative)

c00rdb (945666) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924422)

Thank you for your random Wii plug that really has nothing to do with the article at all (except maybe the subject).

Alright (5, Insightful)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924146)

These claims may be true, I care little enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But the real advantage of playing Oblivion on a PC is the plethora of modifications. The marginal difference of graphical performance between xbox360, PS3, and high-end PC Oblivion is not really that important.

So this article leaves me asking..."So what?"

And the PS3 isn't a terrible piece of equipment, it's just an expensive one. I wouldn't be suprised to see nice graphics on it, I would demand it.

Re:Alright (1)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924678)

Plus, I bet they patched the dupe glitch on the PS3 version. Talk about lame.

PS. I thought the PS3 was supposed to have superior graphics to high end PCs?

Re:Alright (2)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925106)

"PS. I thought the PS3 was supposed to have superior graphics to high end PCs?"
Thats impossible, and always will be.
PCs are the king of gaming, they will never be dethroned.

Re:Alright (3, Insightful)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925966)

PCs have the advantage of new hardware coming out all the time, so "high end" is a moving target. With console releases every 5 years there's not way it can keep up for long. Plus PCs run at much higher resolution in general.

Still, the Xbox 360 spits out better graphics than any computer *I've* ever owned. You couldn't even buy a video card with equivalent power for 400 bucks, much less the rest of the box.

Oh and good luck getting your PC to output HD resolutions that are compatible with your TV, running cables all over the place, and figuring out how to use a wireless keyboard and mouse whilst vegging on the couch. PC gaming is just a different experience.

Re:Alright (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925166)

At least it will give PS3 owners something to do besides play Resistance.

-Eric

Re:Alright (1)

dyslexicbunny (940925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925656)

Agreed on all points. I would honestly demand/expect a lot of things from a PS3 considering the $200 difference (I use the same logic on most purchases, not just ragging the PS3).

In the side-by-side article, I went through all the games and really wasn't impressed with the difference. In fact, this would really discourage me from purchasing a PS3 if I were still debating the issue at this moment. Granted (as they concede in that article), the real graphics battle should occur a year from now once developers figure the PS3 out.

Does anyone know why the PS3 pictures looked like their brightness was set higher? I am assuming they used the same display for both systems so I wonder if it's a console thing or settings were changed around.

Approaching? (3, Insightful)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924150)

I thought the PS3 was meant to be the dogs bollocks in terms of everything from graphics to love making?

ps, the Wii is so much more fun - its peppy [google.com] !

Approaching stickyness.? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924414)

"I thought the PS3 was meant to be the dogs bollocks in terms of everything from graphics to love making?"

*note to self* Do not buy a used PS3 from Liquidcooled.

Re:Approaching? (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925742)

Exactly. This is more revealing about the disappointment of the (early) PS3 visuals than anything. What happened to the days when PC-gamers were drooling over the sparkling-new 3D games that only the PSX could do back in 94?

New shaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924160)

will be coming to the 360 version via a patch. Also, PS3 cannot there is a limit to how many different DLC packages that can be used at the same time. Give a little take a little. In the end it's really a push. Just release the damn add on!

Thanks, poor-man's 360 (4, Insightful)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924164)

"How is this possible? Gamespot reports that 'Oblivion will make extensive use of the PS3's hard drive by caching multiple gigabytes of data, which seemed to help with load times from what we saw.'"

This would be very possible on the 360 if they could assure the 360 actually had a hard drive. Unfortunately, this assumption cannot be made due to the hard driveless 360s floating around out there. Not including one of the best features of the XBox on the value edition 360s was a big mistake and it looks like Microsoft is already beginning to pay for it.

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (3, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924372)

There's nothing preventing them from requiring you to own the hard drive to play the game. This was already done with the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XI.

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (1)

Slithe (894946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925002)

Nothing other than lost sales revenue that is! :)

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17925474)

There's no lost revenue in enabling proper caching and better visuals when the HDD is present.

The simple matter is that Oblivion was 'late' when it missed the 360 launch. Now, they've had a year to refine it. These same advantages are bound to be added in the expansion on all platforms.

The only thing noteworthy about this news, is that the PS3 is finally churning out visuals one would expect from its price tag.

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (3, Insightful)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925726)

Nothing other then Microsoft issuing an edict that it won't happen. Only MMOs and similar games will require hard drives. Everything else MUST be playable with a core edition system and possibly a memory card.

The other difference is the PS3 version is basically installing the game. What else do you call caching large quanities of data to a hard drive to be read back? Next generation every game is going to require 10 minute install times every time you switch discs. Oh joy, if only they gave us driver issues then it'd be all the reasons some of us got out of the PC market.

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17926074)

Caching.

If it's automagically removed once I'm done playing, it's caching.
If it stays, it's installed.

That's a big enough difference.

The 2 reasons it's done the second way in the PC world is that a) it's easier and b) installing is How Things Are Done.

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (1)

Megajim (885529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924478)

It seems like it would be a good idea for certain XBox games to simply require the hard drive. Yes, that would irritate the people who bought their 360s on the cheap, but they could always purchase the hard drive and then play the "advanced" games. Gaming systems used to not come with memory cards, so gamers were required to take care of that on their own. This would be a logical progression from that approach. Are there statistics floating around out there regarding how many 360 owners do not have hard drives?

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924750)

I think MS should definitely have had an HD with all versions. Quite why anyone buys Core, given the price difference between buying a memory card or two, and buying the premium version, I'll never know. Having said that, why can't the game just stream better graphics using the HD, if present? Sure, it's a pest for the developers, but...

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (1)

Bitmanhome (254112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924942)

Dumbest argument ever. It's trivial to code the game to load files from whichever source is available. If the file's on the hard drive, load it from there. If not, load it from DVD. The game will run much slower on driveless systems, but that's the price the PLAYER pays for going cheap.

The hard drive adds NO capability to the Xbox, only speed. Games do not need the hard drive, they will run exactly the same either way, only with longer load times.

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925662)

If the file's on the hard drive, load it from there. If not, load it from DVD.

Unless it's heavily compressed (e.g. high-end fractal stuff combined with procedural texture enhancement) on the game disc and less compressed (e.g. S3TC) on the hard drive, and the decoder and the game can't fit into RAM at once.

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (3, Insightful)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925814)

"Dumbest argument ever."
Here's some advice: even when you're right, saying something like that does not make your argument more convincing. I know Slashdot isn't known for being the most civil place but do we really need people saying things like that?

And what you said isn't even verifiable. How are you judging what makes an argument dumb? What metric are you using?

Don't let the facts get in the way.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17925054)

If the 360 has a Harddrive, then Oblivion will transparently cache data on it.

It's required on the PS3 to make up for the lacklustre performance of the 2x BluRay Drive on the PS3 (compared to the 12x speed DVD drive on the 360).

Re:Don't let the facts get in the way.. (2, Informative)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925706)

It's not so bad when you consider that 2X Blu-ray is 9 megabytes per second and 12x DVD-ROM is about 16 megabytes per second. We had a similar shake-up when DVD-ROM hit the market, people were disappointed by 2X DVD-ROM which was about as fast as 16X CD-ROM. I hear 8X Blu-ray is on the horizon...I wonder if somebody will mod his PlayStation 3 to get a zippier drive, or if it will be offered in a later revision. The PS2 went through a tremendous number of hardware revisions.

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (1)

trdrstv (986999) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925160)

"How is this possible? Gamespot reports that 'Oblivion will make extensive use of the PS3's hard drive by caching multiple gigabytes of data, which seemed to help with load times from what we saw.'"

Ummm... Why the hell would I want to load up my Hard Drive with install data? They are compensating for Blu-Ray having poor read speeds.

Worst mistake ever, Microsoft (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925262)

That was the rare step BACKWARDS in a console generation (the original Xbox had a HDD standard). And even the hard drive they *DID* give us was only a lousy 20 GB. The fact that they're tauting the ability to download 7 GB movies on a drive that only has about 13 GB of free space just goes to show how stupid and short-sighted MS's 360 drive decisions were.

-Eric

Re:Thanks, poor-man's 360 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17925650)

1) The Oblivion developers already said that they are using the identical caching method for the 360 and the PS3, i.e. it is an optional cache 2) Despite what Sony says to the public it is a PS3 TRC requirement that games run without the hard drive being present. I think Sony either originally planned on making the hard drive an optional SKU and backed out, or they plan on doing it in the future to drop the price the system.

BTW, the shorter load times noted in the comparison seem out-of-date. The numbers they quote for the 360 (7-10 seconds) haven't been true in ages. I think the author either doesn't own a 360, is comparing it to Oblivion running on a Core unit, or he's talking about the initial release which had problems with the cache getting fragmented (fixed in a later patch). Again, the Oblivion guys themselves said they had to work around the inferiorites of the PS3 architecture- notably the slow-ass Blu-ray drive and Sony's lack of a unified game updating system.

Reality Is Hilarious (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924174)

Bethesda, a pc developer that is one of the laughingstocks of the game development world due to their embarrassingly buggy games and utter lack of ability to write optimized rendering code(culling, whas dat?), have unintentionally shown just how powerful the PS3 hardware is with this dreadfully boring game.

The fact that one of the most incompetent pc/x86/directx hacks is getting this big a leap in performance over the 360 should scare the shit out of Xbox fanboys everywhere. I can't imagine the coding geniuses at Bethesda are doing anything other than running the main game code on just the PPE and trowing triangles at the RSX and they are still getting such a large leap in performance above the 360 version.

PC quality... For now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924180)

What about at the end of the PS3's estimated 7 year lifespan? How will it compare to the graphics of a high end PC then?

Re:PC quality... For now (1)

bassgoonist (876907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924662)

Exactly...In 2 or 3 years when my video card is really dated, I'll just buy a new one for $250. No such luck with a console...

Re:PC quality... For now (-1, Flamebait)

ThinkWeak (958195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925232)

Exactly...In 2 or 3 years when my video card is really dated, I'll just buy a new one for $250. No such luck with a console...

Seriously? I'm sure in 2 or 3 years you won't have to...

1. Upgrade your Ram to whatever kind it is at that second in time
2. Probably have to upgrade your motherboard as well
3. Your hard drive will probably be on the fritz, or something more juicy will be out
4. If you're playing video games, you probably have to upgrade your (MS) OS also

So all in all, your $250.00 graphics card costs you close to $800.00 dollars. But then again, you knew that didn't you? This isn't the first computer you've upgraded? Is it?

Re:PC quality... For now (0, Flamebait)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925522)

1. Upgrade your Ram to whatever kind it is at that second in time
That's only needed if a board upgrade is needed for some reason. The main reasons here are: CPU too slow, and new bus (PCI Express) needed. Bus doesn't change all that often, and CPU upgrades can be avoided if you only want gaming performance.

2. Probably have to upgrade your motherboard as well
See above

3. Your hard drive will probably be on the fritz, or something more juicy will be out
If you have hard disks die that often on you, then you need a case with better cooling. There are plenty cases where the drives can be mounted behind the intake fan, which keeps them cool and working properly for a long time.

4. If you're playing video games, you probably have to upgrade your (MS) OS also
What the heck for? I play video games, and I still use Win2K. I haven't even really used XP yet, and have no plans at all to upgrade until it stops being supported. There's absolutely no need to hurry with OS upgrades.

That said, my main OS is Linux and upgrades are free there.

So all in all, your $250.00 graphics card costs you close to $800.00 dollars. But then again, you knew that didn't you? This isn't the first computer you've upgraded? Is it?
A computer is cheaper than a computer + PS3 + games you must pay for. On a PC you can quite easily get quite a lot of free entretaintment.

Or are you typing this post on your console?

Re:PC quality... For now (1)

bassgoonist (876907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925586)

Well sure I paid more up front, and I got more in return... I have 2gigs of ram...I won't need more for quite some time My motherboard will be able to use the latest and greatest cpus from AMD, for quite some time...AM3 cpus will work in the AM2 socket. My hard drives have 3 and 5 year warranties, I doubt I'll need a better one. I got vista through my MSDNAA free...and I'm pretty sure there won't be anything new from MS in 3 years...

Four video cards for four players? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925694)

In 2 or 3 years when my video card is really dated, I'll just buy a new one for $250. No such luck with a console...

But won't you need to buy four video cards at $250 each for a four-player game? Virtually no major commercial PC titles from the last decade support a split-screen or shared-view (e.g. Bomberman) mode for use with SDTVs or HDTVs.

hmmm (5, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924188)

I swear, when I first saw the words "PS3 Oblivion" I thought it was going to refer to the PS3's sales record...

PS3 should damn well be better! (4, Insightful)

ArmorFiend (151674) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924218)

I'm confused. I thought that for the first year or so after launch, consoles generally out-performed $2000 gaming rigs, because of the simpler optimization environment of a non-moving target. After a year or so, it seems like Moore's Law kicks in and yesterday's console can't beat tomorrow's $2000 pc.

That PS3 isn't mopping the floor with PeeCee right now is suprising, especially given that its halfway between the cost of a normal console and a new gaming rig (logarithmically speaking). What's more suprising is that the article submitter doesn't agree with my assumption.

Re:PS3 should damn well be better! (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924674)

Yeah... let me rephrase the title...

"Console sold for 50% more than nearest competitor, and claimed to be twice as powerful, shows graphical improvement over competitor in one game"

This is not a win for the PS3. This makes the mess that is the PS3, is just a little less awful. When games are regularly coming out and show significant improvement over the XBox 360, we'll talk. In the meantime, like hell am I paying 50% extra for "Well, it's better in this game!"

Not really... (3, Insightful)

DaFork (608023) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925322)

First off, in reply to the OP (ArmorFiend):

I'm confused. I thought that for the first year or so after launch, consoles generally out-performed $2000 gaming rigs
At least you admit to being confused ;). The XBOX360 wasn't out-performing PCs when it was released either.

Now for my response to the parent (Xugumad):

Console sold for 50% more than nearest competitor, and claimed to be twice as powerful, shows graphical improvement over competitor in one game

Compare the XBOX360 launch titles to the current XBOX360 games (i.e. GRAW vs. GRAW2). It's night and day. What if the PS3 came out with GRAW as a launch title. It would blow the old 360 version out of the water.

The real question is, if they are about equal now and the graphics on both systems mature at the same rate, which system is going to max out first? I say it's going to be the XBOX360. Check back with the PS3 a year after the XBOX games can't be optimized any further.

I own both the 360 and the PS3. Right now I play the 360 more. I would be surprised if I can say the same thing in a year.

Re:PS3 should damn well be better! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924732)

What a fucking moron!

I love it! A fucking port of a fucking year old pc game from a game developer most famous for their inability to write a decently optimized graphics engine and clowns like you are running their dimwitted mouths off about 'teh power of teh pc'.

It is times like this where the limitations of the Net really become apparent when you have no way of actually laughing in an idiot like you's face.

Only said by console fanboys with an e-machine (4, Insightful)

clusterix (606570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925068)

This has never, ever been true at anytime. It likely never will. Sony will have shills say such things and other marketoids have said things like that for various other dead systems in the past twenty years. The truth is that when games are compared head to head, consoles just don't match. It is about hardware price, there are no magical cheap chips. You get what you pay for even if you are Microsoft or Sony. If you want to beat a $2000 computer, you need to be selling a $2000 computer. Also even if your chip does cooler things than a chip already out on the market, if it changes the architecture ie. Cell versus x86 or PowerPC it will take years to get important software such as compilers optimized for it as well as a chip already on the market and gone through those growing pains.

The original Xbox was nothing but a cheap PC that was OK performance wise for a $500 PC when it was designed. However, the PC equivalent in hardware actually was cheaper than the Xbox just a few months after the Xbox was released. Now that old Xboxes are dirt cheap, the equivalent PC is more expensive (prices for a computer can't go below about $200 no matter what is in them due to component count and size). Integration/elimination of excess components saves maybe $100 in real manufacturing costs. It was dumb to buy an Xbox and put all that effort into putting Linux on it back then, now it actually makes sense.

If you want to make a console where the price point is below the integration sweet point of $200 based on common components that sells over a million somehow, then you can probably just beat the price/performance ratio of PCs. The Wii is actually pretty close to this where Nintendo is making money and giving people a somewhat reasonable box for the price. The only reason to buy a console is for their exclusive games and the console's simplicity/integration. Kind of like why Apple thinks it can sell Macs for a premium over PCs with the same hardware.

Not true (4, Insightful)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925436)

This is not true ...

Consoles outperform a similar aged PCs because the game can be tuned to the exact hardware (it is impossible to optimize a game for a Geforce 6, Geforce 7, Geforce 8, Radeon X800, Radeon X1800 and also cover Pentium 4, Pentum Core Duo, AMD X2, and PowerPC. On top of that console's have historically had a massive advantage in that they have 'no' OS to run and have a much lower resolution.

Just look at the Gamecube's best looking games Star Wars: Rogue Squadren 2 and the Resident evil games ... do you think a Pentium 4 in the 1GHz range with a Geforce 3 graphics card would be able to run Windows and a game like this?

there are no magical cheap chips. (3, Insightful)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925640)

You offset the price of chips with the price of games and sell your console at under their cost of manufacture. So there are magical cheap chips.

Re:there are no magical cheap chips. (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925926)

Consider how many people make a profit on a good component for a PC compared to a console ... A BFG card will allow Nvidia, BFG and the retailer all to make a decent profit on every card, a Console will have Nvidia/ATI to make a minor profit (made up for in volume) and then the retailer will make a minor profit.

Only said by pc fanboys with four e-machines (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925728)

The only reason to buy a console is for their exclusive games and the console's simplicity/integration.

The problem is that almost all major commercial titles that support single-screen multiplayer are console exclusives (e.g. Smash Bros.) or multi-console exclusives (e.g. Bomberman). Too bad for owners of set-top PCs.

Compilers (1)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17926122)

Cell versus x86 or PowerPC it will take years to get important software such as compilers optimized for it as well as a chip already on the market and gone through those growing pains
Cell has a Power chip as the main processing unit. Xbox 360 has 3, and there are already optimizing compilers for those.

Re:PS3 should damn well be better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17925184)

Umm I cannot think of the last console where that was true? N64 maybe? Certainly not for the last 10 years. Wake the fuck up.

Re:PS3 should damn well be better! (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925452)

Maybe you are an old school gamer like me? Over a decade ago, PC's were no gaming machines and a new console would provide the best gaming experience for a usually long time after its release. However, at some point the PC's started getting expensive components dedicated for games (e.g. Voodoo was not office-PC material) and also PC's started having enough power to render graphics at much higher than TV resolution. From then on, a console will always trail a contemporary high end PC. I think the Xbox360 was the closest to high-end PC performance upon release (remember over a year ago, and it had a GPU based on technology ATI will use in the yet unreleased R600).

Anyway, you are right about the topic being silly. And you need no logarithmic scale - remember the PS3 does not come with a monitor and you don't need the most expensive graphics card, or many GB's of RAM to beat it. Oh, and if you go with the usual hardware deals (e.g. look at fatwallet.com), you can get something better for less than $600 proving once more that the Blue Ray drive is where all the money is going.

Xbots: Report For Damage Control! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924230)

Get a move on it soldiers!

Get that "more development" damage control meme out there on the double!

Love the last line of TFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924234)

While there are no official reports of this making it into the new 360/PC expansion Shivering Isles, a rumor on the Gamespot preview says that 1up might have the scoop.
I heard from my friend, that his friend heard that this might be true. Let's write an article about it!

So what (2, Insightful)

RichPowers (998637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924252)

Will the PS3 have a rich mod community that's constantly releasing fixes/updates/new content for Oblivion? Probably not. That alone makes me want to stick with the PC version...

Re:So what (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924524)

Oh puleez. People have been hacking and modding consoles for ages. Here's a great video of a hack of Guitar Hero 2 for the PS2 with a modchip. The song is meh, but the performance is captivating:

http://www.poe-news.com/forums/sp.php?pi=100139078 2 [poe-news.com]

Either you're a PCbigot or a troll or an idiot. I'd guess all-of-the-above.

Re:So what (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925664)

The days of the static content consoles are over my friend. If it doesn't show up it is because oblivion is past it's prime. There is no technical reason for it to not get them. Same as my xbox360 version has lots of updates and mods.

Re:So what (1)

Babbster (107076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17926068)

I think you're misunderstanding the OP. The "mod community" for Oblivion on the 360 consists of Bethesda (and they charge for mods). For Oblivion on the PC, the same community consists of Bethesda plus any number of independent gamers/programmers, the latter of whom make their mods available for free, and often modify the games far beyond what Bethesda would consider or even desire (changing greatly the original game mechanics).

I'm a console guy, but I'm still able to recognize that PC games have a significant advantage over consoles in that area.

This thing was supposed to make eggs fly! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924258)

Now they brag about "approaching" PC quality graphics. Nothing to brag about on a next-gen console.

A modest look at it... (2, Informative)

js92647 (917218) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924260)

You can increase the quality of graphics as much as you want, but the gameplay will never change. A dead rat will still look like a dead rat. On top of that, given what Bethesda did with Oblivion (charging for quest-by-quest content in an SP game), I wouldn't entirely count this as "good publicity." Sure the game is still there, it has prettier graphics, but the people behind the game are drowning it in bad business decisions.

More development time..... stupid (1)

Intangible Fact (1001781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924262)

Of course the PS3 game will look and run better if it has been in development for a year longer. dumb dumbs

Well, it had better. (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924292)

Given the PS3's architecture, that's to be expected. It has a decent GPU on the back end, and all those underutilized Cell CPUs to do things like generate procedural textures. The obvious approach for textures on the PS3 should yield a look like Pixar's All Renderman All the Time, with every pixel generated by little shader programs written in San Raphael, instead of compositing in real-world images like everybody else.

The big advantage of procedural textures is that they survive zooming in. In the film world, this isn't as critical, because you know how close the camera will get to a background, and you only put in detail the camera can see. In games, the user can move around and get close to a textured surface, which usually looks terrible.

Good News for Sony and PS3 Owners...but (1)

Rev Jim (AKA Metal F (1004571) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924348)

who here hasn't played Oblivion already? Probably everyone but the most casual of gamers or those almost completely uninterested in a fantasy action adventure RPG or without a PC rig of any stature or xbox360. So it's still good news that the PS3 can crank out some gorgeous eye candy, although expected - definitely a breath of fresh air for anyone interested in the PS3 or Sony themselves. But there's still a lack of games now and on the horizon and a hefty price tag that needs alot more than a one year old game looking almost as good as a current entry level gaming rig will produce to sell me on this system. You know, I know I'll own a PS3 some day...probably around the middle of 2008. Oh yeah, already logged over 100 hours playing Oblivion on my PC, that's just about enough depending on the upcoming expansion's worth in added content...

Re:Good News for Sony and PS3 Owners...but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17925112)

who here hasn't played Oblivion already?

Me. I didn't even know it was a game until I saw this article.

Probably everyone but the most casual of gamers or those almost completely uninterested in a fantasy action adventure RPG or without a PC rig of any stature or xbox360.

My PC rig is fine. But I am only a very casual gamer. (I'm still working on Baldur's Gate. Just got through Cloakwood.)

Re:Good News for Sony and PS3 Owners...but (1)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925860)

I'd suggest sticking with that :-) The Baldur's Gate games are much, much better than Oblivion, and just about as good-looking.

the graphics still suck (1, Troll)

llZENll (545605) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924450)

Gears of War is the best looking game on any platform right now. So saying Oblivion looks better isn't saying much.

A sub $500 pc with a GTS 8800 and C2D will blow the PS3 out of the water.

Re:the graphics still suck (2, Insightful)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924794)

I actually think Viva Piñata looks prettier than Gears of War. Gears is all dark metal textures, blocky characters
with no neck and heavy use of the word 'fuck' so they can say IT'S A MATURE TITLE. Viva is colourful and fuzzy,
and I like the animation better. The critters are softer - gears don't animate much beyond moving their limbs and jaws,
while piñatas have soft, deformable bodies. I don't count 'sploding the enemy in Gears :)

I have no issues with the graphics of Oblivion on 360 - I have both that and the Windows version. The problems I've
run into with the PC version haven't shown up at all on the console. I also run the PC version at 1024x768, while the 360
runs at 720p, which is slightly more in the horizontal aspect, so they're pretty much the same resolution. I'll give them the
load time, though it could be coded into the 360 version to check for the existence of a harddrive, I'm sure..

Re:the graphics still suck (1)

maddskillz (207500) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925084)

I would have figured sawing through a guy with a chainsaw would make it a mature title, but it does make sense that it's an expletive that pushes it over the edge.
Gears does remind me of quake though, with 255 shades of brown

Re:the graphics still suck (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924850)

I'd like to know where you can buy a PC that includes a C2D and a 8800GTS for "sub-$500". Just a 8800GTS runs you $400. Add in a low end Core2Duo ($170), and you're already over-budget. You still have a case, powersupply, motherboard, a gig or two of DDR2, harddrive, DVDplayer, and an OS to go. . .

In what world do you live? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924902)

Where is it that a *complete* system featuring a GTS 8800 (currently cheapest on newegg is $390) and a C2D (cheapest on newegg $176 for an Allendale) can be had for under 500 bucks? I know newegg isn't absolutely the cheapest, but between those two components, a motheboard, memory, case, power supply, optical drive, hard drive, you *cannot* get under $500 with the particular items you call out.

Besides, as far as the purpose intended, the Cell processor and memory architecture of a PS3 is more sophisticated (speed-wise) than any core 2 duo system. The GPU lags behind the top end PC parts and the memory amount is low relative to what is realistic with PCs, but it isn't so easy to dismiss what the PS3 *does* bring to the market.

That said I have nearly zero interest in the PS3, no interesting games to me yet, and a fair number of series going to PS3 to me jumped the shark. Increasing the graphical complexity is nice, but not fundamentally more entertaining than PS2 games.

Re:In what world do you live? (1)

Spike15 (1023769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925488)

Besides, as far as the purpose intended, the Cell processor and memory architecture of a PS3 is more sophisticated (speed-wise) than any core 2 duo system. The GPU lags behind the top end PC parts and the memory amount is low relative to what is realistic with PCs, but it isn't so easy to dismiss what the PS3 *does* bring to the market.
Hahaha. You made me laugh. In order to cut corners they left certain key optimizations out of the console processors. They are eaten up by low-end dual core PC processors. The architecture may be more sophisticated, but as for everything else the consoles kiss serious PC ass (and that includes speed).

Re:the graphics still suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17924936)

"Gears of War is the best looking game on any platform right now"

Oh my god!!!

Shiny low-poly shiny/bumpy absurdly overly normal mapped bald space marines!!!

Slap that shiny shader on a turd and the Xbox fanboys will lap it up.

Wait, let me quote that one more time!

"Gears of War is the best looking game on any platform right now"

So fucking sad. But hey, at least the retarded Xbots are consistent. They tried to get the world to believe Halo was some sort of graphical showpiece just because it had that stupid green metal effect. And now they are trying to do the same with that idiotic 'bright lights on shiny normal maps'.

No wonder the piece of shit 360 is selling worse than the first Xbox.

Re:the graphics still suck (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924960)

I'd like to know how you make a $500 PC with a GTS8800 and a C2D. Don't 8800's cost $500 in and of themselves?

Most C2D machines I price out end up being between $1000-1500.

Apples and Oranges (1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924520)

I would hope, since the game is coming out a full year later, that some improvements would be made.

The real comparison would involve both development cost and quality of the game if they were developing for both platforms simultaneously.

2560x1600 out of the ps3? (-1, Troll)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924582)

The PS3 can push Oblivion at 2560x1600? Wow.

My nVidia 8800gtx can, too (in XP, not Vista, mind you).

Yep, they're just about even.

*NOT*

Congratulations (3, Insightful)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924962)

Your $600 video card [pricegrabber.com] does just as well, if not just a little better than, a $600 console. How much was your processor, memory, hard drive, dvd drive, motherboard, network card, and case? And before we forget, how much did your copy of Windows cost you?

Re:Congratulations (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925356)

Wow, I'm glad I read this article on the internet about how the PS3 is so much better before I rushed out to buy a PC!

Re:Congratulations (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925834)

Really? What a coincidence I was just reading it on my PS3 and it saved me rushing out and buying a PC! :)

Re:2560x1600 out of the ps3? (0, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925790)

The PS3 can push Oblivion at 2560x1600? Wow. My nVidia 8800gtx can, too

If PCs can push 2560x1600 pixels, then why aren't there more PC titles that give a 1280x800 pixel window to each of four players holding a USB gamepad? Why do virtually all multiplayer PC games require the head of the household to buy multiple PCs?

Load times? (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924644)

They say the load times will be better than on the 360? That may just be speculation, given that Bethesda decided to put multiple copies [kotaku.com] of Oblivion on the Blu-ray discs because of the generally horrific Blu-ray loading times.

RTFA (3, Informative)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924826)

Yeah, way to not read the article.

Your link (1/17):
The PS3 Oblivion team compensated for the slower drive by duplicating data across the Blu-ray disc, making it faster to find and load

Today's link (2/6):
Bethesda's Pete Hines also commented that recent reports of data duplication on the PS3 Oblivion disc have been exaggerated, and this technique isn't different from the similar strategy that was employed in the creation of the Xbox 360 game last year.

Re:RTFA (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924876)

Yes. Because businesses never try to spin news their way.

Re:RTFA (1)

Penguin's Advocate (126803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924968)

What? Your response doesn't even make sense. Bethesda made the game in all cases, and it was a Bethesda rep who made that statement, how are they "spinning it their way"? If Sony had said it that would be one thing, but they didn't, Bethesda did.

Re:RTFA (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925100)

Lets review..

If this console succeeds, you stand to make a great deal of money off it.

So, if you encounter a major problem with said console during development, do you:

a) Delay the release, and "rig" a work-around to hardware issues, then downplay said problems after the fact.
b) Confirm the problems, and say that the console is in fact, a piece of junk?

It's all about the spin.

Re:RTFA (1)

bym051d (980242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925334)

Are you talking about XBOX backwards compatibility?

Re:RTFA (1)

Penguin's Advocate (126803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925672)

Sure, assuming you encounter a previously unknown major hardware issue late into development. Doesn't happen very often on consoles. More likely, you know about the issue well ahead of time, you plan a fix and implement it. Even better if you've already made the same fix for another product, you just rinse and repeat. No need to spin it any which way, just keep your mouth shut and make it work. Now, if you're trying to sell more copies of a (nearly) year old game, then maybe you leak something about how it was old and busted on the xbox and the PS3 is the new hotness, maybe. As for the actual issue (ie compensating for the speed of an optical drive), it's not new. Many games have done it in the past and many will do it in the future, it's not unique to the PS3 (or the 360 for that matter).

Re:Load times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17925644)

And this is bad how? All the end users care about are the actual load times. How Bethesda achieved it is irrelevant. Good for them for taking advantage of the unique feature of the PS3 to improve the load times.

Same issue with both tests (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17924964)

From the IGN comparison:

The PS3 didn't beat the 360 in this first comparison, but the games do look fine for first-generation titles. The real graphics battle will likely come next year.

Now that the Oblivion developers have had a while to work with the PS3, I would say it would be likley to look better than the 360 version which was an early title for that console. In both tests it's a matter of timing as to what looks better where.

Really both are about equal in terms of graphics ability, which we all knew already anyway.

What would be kind of cool is if some developers (like the Oblivion developer) would make available engine patches online to increase the quality of the game later on. I don't know if console games have done that before (beyond patching up things like framerate issues I think).

Heh (1)

Midnight Voyager (803970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925260)

Heh. Still doesn't hold a candle to Qarl's, LOD replacements, beauty mods, the foliage replacer, etc, etc, etc. Mods rule, baby.

I know some of this has been said... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925376)

...and some of it has not, so mod however you see fit.

I'm glad that they are making it look better. Too many games are on both the 360 and the PS3 in which the PS3 version pales in comparison...Fight Night Round 3 is the perfect example of this.

In the case of Oblivion, they have taken a game that was fantastic when it was first released (and still is now) and vowed to make it better. While this seems obvious to many people, they still took the time and the effort to do it.

Now.

My question to you PC Gamers that played Oblivion and delved into the (awesome) world of Oblivion mods...look at what they are citing as the differences for the PS3 version...aside from the extra caching and such, do you see what I see?

That's right folks. Like WoW, many of the changes are very similar to things that people in the mod community released for the PC. So, what is my real question then?

Had the original lacked the ability to be so easily modded, and had the mods that WERE released never created...would these same changes have been made for the PS3 version? Anyone can tell you that the difference between the PC and the 360 version of Oblivion on a hi-def screen is not very big...the difference between the 360 version on a hi-def screen and the PC version with many graphical mods applied to it, however, is massive.

So again: how much of the PC Oblivion modding community do you think played a role in the decision to rewrite, rerender, and redraw many portions of the game that modders themselves changed?

Re:I know some of this has been said... (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925596)

> Fight Night Round 3 is the perfect example of this.

Actually the only difference I could see in the side-by-side (other than the obvious default gamma differences in the other games) is that they toned down the ridiculous overuse of bloom on the PS3 version. Then again they didn't really show much of the game, did they? I think the PS3's real problem is that it has half the RAM of the 360. As procedural textures go, the PS3 will probably annihilate the competition ... but I don't see procedural textures taking off. Maybe next generation.

Re:I know some of this has been said... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925670)

Not to shit on your asessment, but look again. The PS3 had inferior charector models, inferior crowd models...hell, even the textures of the fight venues were not as good...

wow! (3, Funny)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925458)

Wow, this is incredible! For the price of a high-end gaming PC I can get a machine capable of high-end gaming PC visuals!

Took a beating? (1)

_iris (92554) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925502)

"After taking a beating..."

I don't think the results of that comparison are so clear. Where the 360 does better, it is significantly so but not really a deal breaker. Where the PS3 does better is much more in-your-face stuff that makes the 360 look childish. Examples:

* The rear view mirror and the street light in the last Need for Speed picture. Where are you looking? I hope you are looking at the rear view mirror or traffic signals while diving instead of the buildings. So... bad drivers should buy the 360 and good drivers should buy the PS3? *grin*
* The last two Madden pictures. The visor is disgusting in the 360 shots. The scoreboard looks considerably better in the PS3 shots. Who cares if his jersey is clearer on the edge of the frame on the 360? The jersey numbers look clearer in the PS3 shots when it matters; during and just before the play.
* In NBA 2K7 the PS3 looks too blurred but the 360 has too many jagged edges. Both ugly but I think the blurring in the PS3 adds a nice touch to the moving players.

No Oblivion screenshots? Booo! (2, Insightful)

amrust (686727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925808)

Who else out there paitently waded through all the game sections in the Gamespot article, waiting for some actual PS3/360 Oblivion comparison shots?

Y'know... based on the /. post title, and all?

PS3? Computer? (1)

treak007 (985345) | more than 7 years ago | (#17925950)

A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?