|
|
Uncharted 2 would be impossible on Xbox 360
Author: Joe MartinPublished: 28th August 2009
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves would be impossible to recreate on the Xbox 360, claim developer Naughty Dog.
"I guarantee that this game couldn't be working on Xbox 360. It would be impossible. I'm 100 per cent sure of this," Balestra told Ars Technica.
Balestra said that the main reason the game wouldn't work on the Xbox 360 is because it needs the Blu-Ray drive to work, claiming that every single bit of the 25GB disc had been crammed with game data.
"You can play the entire game without loading. We don't require an install. We're doing all the post-processing effects on the SPUs [Synergistic Processing Units]. The quality of the depth of field we have, you can't do that on the Xbox. We've invested a lot of time maximising the power of the machine," added Balestra.
"That's our job, to make the PS3 shine," he said. He's right, of course - Naughty Dog is owned by Sony.
Comparing the sequel to the previous game, Balestra said that Uncharted 2 uses the entire potential of the PlayStation 3, while Uncharted: Drakes Fortune only used around 30 - 40 percent.
Do you buy Balestra's claims? Let us know in the forums.
Related
Comments (44)- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2010
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
Then a games producer owned by SONY says that the PS3 is the dogs danglies and the other consoles are useless.
Sounds like a knee jerk counter attack.
But I, being a PS3 owner, am buying into it wholeheartedly.
My PS3 doesn't suck after all. Yay!
pc ownes all
Claiming the only reason Uncharted 2 is imposible on the 360 is down to Blu-Ray is a bit dumb. It wouldn't be hard to a) texture/movie compress or b) use multiple DVDs and a HDD install. Sounds very much like a pro-PS3 knee-jerk reaction following all the recent negative press.
The key thing to note I guess is that they are able to improve on what has gone before, which was quite impressive, meaning the hardware does have potential that many aren't tapping into, not many high profile sequels on the same console hardware provide much of a jump in anything be it gameplay or graphics, preferring to play safe and provide more of the same, from what I've read Naughty dog are tackling both, should be good.
What's also good is that they share their source code with other first/third party devs which bodes well for future games too.
Well according to NVidia GPUs will be 570x more powerful in 6 years time.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/08/27/nvidia-predicts-570-times-performance-boost/1
The first game was great and the sequel is looking even better.
Blah.
The End
It is impossible because they don't care about using a different approach for a pretty different architecture. Give them a bigger budget and more time and I bet they could make it work.
Gotta agree.
It really is a visually impressive game. Though it could use some more intense AA. That's what bugs me about mots console games, so jagged.
Still impressive that's it's apparently a 25gb game.
I don't even think this statement matters as consoles are now holding back PC games.
Fair enough, but back in 2004 PC graphics weren't so limited by consoles. 5 years later, there's bits and bobs added, but nothing nearing revolutionary. That said, Graphics still take a back seat to gameplay.
Hence my addiction to AOE2 LAN.
Console games are now 3-4 generations behind current pc hardware. And it will only get worse. Multiple dvds for a game should not be needed in this day and age. Still wondering how many dvds final fantasy 13 will arive on.
Every day after release is a little bit closer to death for a console. Same goes for graphics cards in PCs, and for CPUs and the likes. But it's easier to replace them in a PC, eh? :)
I have a blu-ray burner in my pc and a blu-ray player in my laptop.
I have the 4870 x2 space heater in my desktop, and will soon be throwing another one in there, since they are so cheap now. How many consoles can hope to have 4 (!!!!) gpus?!
Advantage PC, as always.
Yours in PC Gaming Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Naughty Dog are in Sonys pocket, they're probably well provided for (In terms of dev kits and tech support) thanks to their many years of Sony dedication.
It's probably (Infact, I'd say it most certainly is) true, but frankly. Who gives a toss? those that do own a PS3, and those that don't probably, well, don't.
I don't see what your getting at here because that's dumb most people I know with a pc don't spend much more than £1000(€1,135.77) on their pc but yes we can spend that much but not many people do.
the game does look very good
I bet these people still live with their mum and when they move out reality will hit them.
Familys cant spend 3000 for a pc for their kids. Thats why consoles were invented, cheap entertainment system. With the 360 and PS3 looking so good, sony and ms should now concerntrate on making games than a new system.
Next PS3 should arrive in 2011.
Plenty of time to develop new games, eh?
I though Project Natal was going to "revive" the Xbox so they didn't have to produce another console so soon?
Both MS and Sony are looking for a 10 year life cycle. Which is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Though the PS2 is still going strong after 9 years.
1 slow CPU core (with lots of fast CPU-only memory bandwidth, but VERY slow VRAM access), 8 RISC SPEs, with 64kb memory and nothing else, and 1 medium-speed GPU with slow VRAM access and no main RAM access makes for a poor-performing system.
The fact that Sony owns Naughty Dog kind of makes his claims useless, since he's been paid to say this crap to hype up the PS3.
Just so you all know, I own a PS3.. but as far as gaming is concerned, it's not a patch on my 360.
Sony have always had a 10 year plan with their consoles, releasing a new console around halfway through each lifespan. The PS1 was released in 1995/6 (not sure which), then the PS2 came out in 2000, and the PS1 went on until 2005/6 and so the PS2 will be phased out in 2010. Then I assume the PS4 will come out in 2011/2012 with the PS3 being phased out in 2016.
That's just my guess though. I just noticed the pattern emerging.
I am confident I made the right choice, but I'm not going to go bashing people who prefer to game on another platform, be it Xbox 360, PC or something else. Yes, PCs have undoubtedly surged ahead in raw processing horsepower now, as was inevitable, but in terms of raw value, ease of use, and good all round fun, I'd take a PS3 hooked up to a 40" TV in the lounge over a PC in the spare room any day of the week. As for PS3 vs Xbox 360, it is absurd to say "it is a solid fact hardware on the 360 is faster than the ps3". We are talking about two very different architectures here, with different performance characteristics but ultimately very similar overall processing power. Multiformat games typically look near identical on both, some are better on Xbox, some on PS3, but generally nothing in it. Unless you have a real affinity for one or other console's exclusive titles, I don't think you can really make a call on gaming prowess. For me, Blu-ray, build quality, aesthetics and noise were the issues that swung it in favour of PS3, but like I said, to each his own, right?
Back on topic, Uncharted: DF was a brilliant game. Perhaps not the best graphics in the world ever from a technical standpoint, but beautiful artwork and animation, good pacing, voice acting, difficulty and plot, a really enjoyable experience. And that, at the end of the day, is what matters. I am MASSIVELY excited about the sequel - it looks awesome. I'm sure someone one day will produce a technically superior game on PS3 or X360, but so what?