KOTOR III Poll

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I heard Halo 2 was just Halo with better graphics and a crappier ending. As I didn't like Halo, I assume I wouldn't like Halo 2.

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've never played Halo but I rather enjoyed II (not enough to buy but certainly no regrets renting it). Being able to jump onto a vehicle blast it open and then drive off in it gave everything a very immersive quality. I got to be a very good ghost bike rider by the end.

 

The ending was odd. It didnt feel like it was leading up to an ending and it didnt feel like a boss encounter then it was just over with the lead in for Halo III.

[EnderAndrew]

PC Format #176, July 2005, p 25 has an hardware comparison between the Xbox 360, PS3 and the PC.

 

Xbox scores 6, PS3 scores 7 and PC scores 10.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a ridiculously biased and foolish article.

 

I'm a big fan of PCs. I love my Athlon 64 system.

 

The best Athlon 64 processors on the market can't touch the Cell processor. The best ATI and NVidia graphics cards on the market currently don't touch the GPUs for the PS3 and XBox 360.

 

At launch, both consoles will provide far better processing power for the dollar than a PC. They will rival $3,000 PCs, if not beat them in capabilities. 4 years after launch, high-end gaming PCs will trounce those consoles, and yet those consoles will be selling for $150, and high-end gaming PCs will still be far more expensive.

 

That has always been the PC to console relationship. Mind you, PCs do far more, but that article is horribly biased none the less.

[Guest MacleodCorp]

AT the moment, I cannot truely answer this question. It would be like asking, which do you prefer, but not trying both. I am an XBox/PC gammer. However, I made my choices based upon a preference, which I will never do again. What I would need to do is see some game, which unitlize both system's capasity and technology before I decide, which I would buy.

 

You can have to most powerful machine, and the game designers could make the worse game graphics ever.

 

All and all, I would prefer KOTOR III to be on a PC. From my experience with both the XBox version and PC version, I find that a PC's graphics kicks but.

 

Let see how far Lucas Arts will go to please the fans...

[Oerwinde]

I'm still gonna say PC/PS3/Xbox360. The hardware for the PS3 and 360 isn't as much of a gap as the PS2 and Xbox, so both should be able to handle it fine. And PC is my platform of choice, so it should be released on that too.

[metadigital]

PC Format #176, July 2005, p 25 has an hardware comparison between the Xbox 360, PS3 and the PC.

 

Xbox scores 6, PS3 scores 7 and PC scores 10.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a ridiculously biased and foolish article.

 

I'm a big fan of PCs. I love my Athlon 64 system.

 

The best Athlon 64 processors on the market can't touch the Cell processor. The best ATI and NVidia graphics cards on the market currently don't touch the GPUs for the PS3 and XBox 360.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am afraid you are mistaken. For a start, my current pc has 1GB af RAM. I have only got 128MB of VRAM on my GPU, but then again my vomputer is nearly 2 years old. Right now, I can have as much RAM as I want (but even 1GB is more than the next gen consoles), and there are video cards with specs of: 256MB+ VRAM, PCI Express faster bus transport architecture, and SLI/Crossfire allowing dual video cards running in parallel. See the nVidea 7800, and the ATi X850: which is more powerful and can also be used in parallel with almost any other ATi GPX.

 

Of course the article was biased; it was from a PC Format magazine! That said, every comment posted on this topic is biased; and I was being larconic (something I do quite often); still the fact remains that the next gen consoles will be using the GPUs released to the PC audience in the last few weeks, and pc users are able to configure them to higher specs.

 

Don't forget that a console is restricted to a TV, and even HDTVs are only 1080p resolution; the nVidea (which is the Xbox's GPU, and so is only 1080i) supports QXDA (2048x1536) on a monitor.

 

But then again it all really comes down to software; the games.

At launch, both consoles will provide far better processing power for the dollar than a PC.  They will rival $3,000 PCs, if not beat them in capabilities.  4 years after launch, high-end gaming PCs will trounce those consoles, and yet those consoles will be selling for $150, and high-end gaming PCs will still be far more expensive.

 

That has always been the PC to console relationship.  Mind you, PCs do far more, but that article is horribly biased none the less.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. they will rival gaming PCs, but not beat them. Quite often the gaming mags have articles to build a PC for under

[Nartwak]

All Canadian winners must correctly answer a skill testing mathematical problem, if selected as a winner, in order to receive a prize.

That's... odd.

 

It's better than making them leap hurdles I suppose.

[metadigital]

I was wondering if anyone would read that ...

It is either that they don't believe the US winners would be able to pass the skill test, or some other reason

[Darth Sprawl]

The fact that Sony has beefed up the ps3 shows they know that the current gen was inferior compared to the graphics of the xbox. There is no shame in that because their con has been out there without no real challenger opposing them for years(sorry, nintendo).

 

BUT the xbox360 announcement was after ps3, and with the opportunity to come over the top of the ps3 specs again and not do so will probably bite Microsoft in the a$$...big big mistake BG!

 

PC will always be the best because you can always upgrade and spend more money on making ur system top shelf. The limit is how deep ur pockets go, and you also get patches, downloads, updates, etc...

[metadigital]

... and the games are more often than not released on the PC as well as any other platform ... if they can meet the specs. "

[hearts inferno]

Playstation and Sony have invested very little into RPG's compared to Xbox and microsoft so I think that it should be with Xbox360 an pc.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Where's the none of the above option?

[ncr]

Where's the none of the above option?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Darth Flatus]

too late

[Echo_Drive]

My vote went for the Xbox 360.

 

Since add-ons and new custom features can be downloaded for most if not all games for the Xbox 360, this will add on a HUGE replay value to KOTOR III.

 

Even though it'll be on Xbox 360, it'll most likely be on the PC as well. So everyone's a winner...lol...except for PS3. Well they could put it on the PS3 in addition to Xbox and PC, but I don't see why they would suddenly change console lines.

[Darth Flatus]

you are of course assuming that there will be addons and updates for such a game - based on past performance, i would not be so hopeful.

[Epiphany]

In pure processing power, the PS3 is twice as powerful as the XBox 360.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

lol

 

A big, huge, fat, negative on that one, Ace.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think KoTOR 3 should have these, whatever console its made for.

[EnderAndrew]

In pure processing power, the PS3 is twice as powerful as the XBox 360.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

lol

 

A big, huge, fat, negative on that one, Ace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering that you have been flat wrong in your technical arguements with me to this point, you should learn to drop this.

 

Pure processing power is measured in flops. With this generation, it comes down to terraflops, and the PS3 has twice the raw power of the 360. It's cold, hard facts that independent developers have confirmed.

 

Some debate how the power will be used, and some debate the strengths and weaknesses of each CPU. But honestly, the lion's share of processing will likely go through the GPU for both systems, so I don't think it will be a huge issue.

 

Either way, you've really gone out of your way to destroy any credibility you might have by consistently denying facts and instead throwing out empty propoganda.

[Palmtree]

Pure processing power is measured in flops.  With this generation, it comes down to terraflops, and the PS3 has twice the raw power of the 360.  It's cold, hard facts that independent developers have confirmed.

 

Some debate how the power will be used, and some debate the strengths and weaknesses of each CPU.  But honestly, the lion's share of processing will likely go through the GPU for both systems, so I don't think it will be a huge issue.

 

Either way, you've really gone out of your way to destroy any credibility you might have by consistently denying facts and instead throwing out empty propoganda.

Flops are a measure of the floating point performance of the machine. In this respect, it's true that the PS3 has twice the performance of the X360. However, you also have to take into account the integer performance of each machine. IIRC games are generally 20% floating point and 80% integer. Microsoft claim that their machine has three times the integer performance of the PS3, so the X360 may have more raw power. I'm not really a technical person though, so I'm not sure how much of this is relevant.

[Darth Flatus]

Its all well and good for MS and Sony to compare length and girth on paper. So far each is accusing the other of being misleading by confusing inches with centimetres but in actual fact none of this will matter to the end user.

 

Just wait and see how each of them will use their respective tools. Bedroom prowess is much better than locker-room pride.

[Epiphany]

Considering that you have been flat wrong in your technical arguements with me to this point, you should learn to drop this.

 

Pure processing power is measured in flops.  With this generation, it comes down to terraflops, and the PS3 has twice the raw power of the 360.  It's cold, hard facts that independent developers have confirmed.

 

Some debate how the power will be used, and some debate the strengths and weaknesses of each CPU.  But honestly, the lion's share of processing will likely go through the GPU for both systems, so I don't think it will be a huge issue.

 

Either way, you've really gone out of your way to destroy any credibility you might have by consistently denying facts and instead throwing out empty propoganda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Considering that I have not been flat out wrong... I'll repeat (again) for you, a break down of the PS3 technical specs.

 

copy/paste

 

The Cell itself is extremely poorly designed, and the heart of its performance comes from the SPEs, which will be pretty much impossible to use to their potential. There is no cache associated with them and they only have 256KB of local memory at RAM speeds that need to be DMA'ed to from main memory. It requires linear memory access, and a memory manager to run on the SPE in order to map addresses between the local 256KB and main memory. Branching in your code throws out a significant portion of your performance on the SPEs, and pretty much NO code goes long without branches. The one exception would be processing lists of vertices, but that's why the GPU is there, and there isn't much reason to supplement its vertex processing power. The power of the SPEs is entirely focused on floating point arithmetic, which doesn't even make up a significant amount of game code these days.

 

In other words, the BULK of the Cell's processing power is unusuable by games as they are generally architected. At the very least, it is insanely difficult to harness. The fact that you can write code for them using C++ does nothing to change their arhitecture or make planning for the system any easier.

 

All of those architectural decisions are known facts coming directly from Sony in numerous public events as well as in their developer documentation. There is no ambiguity here. No hidden power. No "well maybe we don't know everything yet". No tricks left up their sleave. That is the architecture of the PS3 as it is set in silicon. The only CONCEIVABLE way in which the PS3 beats the 360 in terms of performance is if you take all of the gigaflops on the machine - the PPE, the 7 SPEs, and the (totally a joke) GPU number (in bold) =

 

36 + 7(26) + 1800 ~ 2 teraflops

 

Notice how 90% of that number comes from a very suspect GPU number. And the 10% which remains for CPU floating point arithmetic is divided amongst 8 processors, 7 of which will be very difficult to manage. And the performance gets much worse when you talk about anything other than floating point.

 

So, sorry, but the GPU is not going to push 1800, it's simply not going to happen.

 

In recent news, Sony has already said all 7 SPE's will not be functional. On top of that, the PS3 could have 1+ defective SPE's on top of the redundant SPE(s) that will not be used.

 

The number of SPEs we equip to the Cell and how many we will actually use are two different things.

 

If the Cell's final chip dimension is about 200 square millimeters, making one without any defects is extremely difficult. We can't reach our anticipated production yield with that. Of course, we'll take various measures to lower the defect density, but that won't be enough.

 

Taken from a Gamespot interview.

 

Take care, and have a wonderful day.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

"This is the ultimate aesthetic. The number of SPEs we equip to the Cell and how many we will actually use are two different things. I wanted to adopt the idea of 'redundancy' to the development of semiconductors. Logic LSIs, excluding memory chips, are considered defective and unshippable if just one transistor or line doesn't work. If the Cell's final chip dimension is about 200 square millimeters, making one without any defects is extremely difficult. We can't reach our anticipated production yield with that. Of course, we'll take various measures to lower the defect density, but that won't be enough. But by considering one or two SPEs as a redundancy from the very beginning, we can still use a Cell chip even if it's partially defective," Kutaragi said, who also revealed that a similar scheme would also be used for the PlayStation 3's RSX graphics processor.

 

"An interesting question is what will be done with the Cell chips that only have six working SPEs," continued Kutaragi. "We won't use it for the PS3, of course. Rather, I'm seriously thinking about using two of these chips to create a home server. Home servers have less of a constraint in case size and board dimension when compared to the PS3, and we can make enough space for two Cell chips. That will make it a product with a total of 12 SPEs. This is possible with the Cell since it can use as many SPEs as it needs. And this will bring a use to Cell chips that aren't fit for the PS3."

 

What you really have to ask yourself is why MS suddenly did a Uturn on how powerful the alpha rigs at E3 were in comparison to the final product.. The PS3 complete is estimated at 25% more powerful than the rig used to run the tech demo's at E3.

 

Now you yourself said that the 360's at E3 were representave of the final 360, so it's somewhat strange that MS would suddenly try to claim that the E3 alphas are only 25% representative (which quite frankly smells like a week old fish).

[Epiphany]

What you really have to ask yourself is why MS suddenly did a Uturn on how powerful the alpha rigs at E3 were in comparison to the final product.. The PS3 complete is estimated at 25% more powerful than the rig used to run the tech demo's at E3.

 

Now you yourself said that the 360's at E3 were representave of the final 360, so it's somewhat strange that MS would suddenly try to claim that the E3 alphas are only 25% representative (which quite frankly smells like a week old fish).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I never once stated that the E3 hardware was full power, please don't put words in my mouth. E3 had the ALPHA kits, which were dual core 2.5 ghz PowerPC processors with a standard ATi GPU. They were ~30% of final product power, according to their public relations.

 

BETA kits just shipped a few weeks back, and those are based off of final architecture, from what I've read.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I never once stated that the E3 hardware was full power, please don't put words in my mouth.  E3 had the ALPHA kits, which were dual core 2.5 ghz PowerPC processors with a standard ATi GPU.  They were ~30% of final product power, according to their public relations.

 

BETA kits just shipped a few weeks back, and those are based off of final architecture, from what I've read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You said they were more representative of the final 360 than the PS3's were of the PS3. If I really cared I could go find the quote. But it should be obvious to anyone by now that you only take things out of context to support your arguements and that in iteself is the biggest sign of a weak arguement.

 

Either you didnt have a clue how powerful the E3 kits were , or you flip flop to MS's propaganda. Either way it dosnt make you particularly credible on the matter.

[Epiphany]

You said they were more representative of the final 360 than the PS3's were of the PS3. If I really cared I could go find the quote. But it should be obvious to anyone by now that you only take things out of context to support your arguements and that in iteself is the biggest sign of a weak arguement.

 

Either you didnt have a clue how powerful the E3 kits were , or you flip flop to MS's propaganda. Either way it dosnt make you particularly credible on the matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, I never once stated that the X360 at E3 was representative of final hardware. I hope at some point you "care" and look through the 20 or so posts I've made so that you can see that I at no point, said what you're claiming. Nice try though.