Fun Stuff > CLIKC
Nintendo....Wii?
IronOxide:
I really like the name. It's creative, something that the other systems are lacking.
Switchblade:
--- Quote from: est ---Ok sorry, allow me to elaborate quickly on my PS3 stance: the processor(s) is/are "technically superior" (though debated), but the graphics unit is not. Devs are already complaining about the relative difficulty developing games on it, and I've seen some specs recently saying that the 360 uses less system resources to run its OS than the PS3 does. I've also seen a couple of quotes from industry sources saying that Blu-Ray is probably gonna tank just like basically every other Sony proprietary format, so they are delaying for no reason.
--- End quote ---
The approach they're taking, as I understand it, is that they're doing away with dedicated subsystems (such as actual graphics cards) and doing the whole thing, top to bottom, with pure number crunching. Which is actually a very old skool way of running your games. The difference is, the theoretical processing power of these things is on a par with a Kray supercomputer (albeit, a crappy low-end 1980s one).
Wether or not it works properly remains to be seen, but given how apparently sexy UT2007 is going to look on it, I'm confident it should provide results.
The advantage to that system - well, the BIG advantage - is future compatability. As any PC gamer will tell you, the hard part is keeping up with the march of graphics technology. Every few months, somebody begins production on a game that makes use of some new gizmo that was previously impossible or unthought-of, and the hardware companies are constantly producing new graphics cards capable of handling those gizmos. Over time, you need to replace the graphics card, or, with consoles, the entire system. If the PS3 pans out as I'm hoping it will, it'll effectively eliminate the need for games developers to hold back on making use of the latest technology and suchlike by doing away with the need for sub-system support, and instead processing all the data involved the old-fashioned way. It's harder work, but the end result is that you (theoretically) wind up with a console capable of doing anything and everything that the developers care to throw at it, for quite a long time.
In theory, at least. I have to agree with you that in terms of their hardware at least, Sony have a history of failing to live up to expectations. Of the "next-gen" consoles, the PS3 is the one I'll be getting, but that's mostly because I own a load of PS2 games already, and find that the games released for the Playstation are the ones that appeal most to me. Wether or not the console is any good, Sony has a history of scoring all the good titles for their machines.
I guess we'll just wait and see.
Ghostwriter:
They should have just called it the Nintendo Wang. It would have been better because it's so up-front that it would be difficult to make clever puns and jokes with it and actually look edgy. Whereas "Wii" is just absolutely begging to be mocked.
Or, as Penny Arcade so eloquently mocked it, why not call it the Nintendo Vagina? I'd totally go for it. "Guys, I bought a Vagina! It's up in my room right now! Let's go play some Super Bang Brothers."
[/possibly somewhat juvenile]
est:
--- Quote from: Switchblade ---... processing all the data involved the old-fashioned way. It's harder work ...
--- End quote ---
I do take your point and I hope that it does work for them, but from the dev reports I've been seeing developers don't like it. If you were the head of a dev team/company which would you prefer to develop on, a system that is easy to make a game for quickly & looks good, or a machine that needs to be done "the old fashioned way" and is therefore more expensive in man-hours and cash to complete? If you look at it that way they are behind the ball before you even start comparing the system specs/units shipped, etc :(
Catfish_Man:
--- Quote from: Switchblade ---The approach they're taking, as I understand it, is that they're doing away with dedicated subsystems (such as actual graphics cards) and doing the whole thing, top to bottom, with pure number crunching. Which is actually a very old skool way of running your games. The difference is, the theoretical processing power of these things is on a par with a Kray supercomputer (albeit, a crappy low-end 1980s one).
--- End quote ---
You're incorrect. If you really want an explanation, I cooked up some diagrams and such a while back when I was researching it, and have some great links, but it gets pretty hairy.
Quick summary: The PS3 still has a graphics card, and it's still a fairly traditional one, but the processor takes the basic approach of taking off the last 10 years of design to make it smaller, and then hitting copy-paste 7 times. If your code vectorizes *and* multithreads well, it'll fly. If it doesn't... figure on getting something like what my laptop can do (1GHz G4). The launch titles are always somewhat rushed, so they'll likely be doing something like: PPE (the non-wacky core, 98% identical to an Xbox360 core) runs the game, SPE 1 (wacky vector core 1) decodes video, SPE 2 decodes audio, SPEs 3-7 sit idle most of the time. The real question of the PS3's power is whether game developers will be able to take anywhere close to full advantage of the SPEs before the PS3 is totally obsolete.
<pedant>Also it's Cray not Kray </pedant>
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version