Okay, NOW Sony's in touble. (FF related)

[Elessar]

Compare the PS3 to the Xbox360, aside from technical differances that in the end can be overcome, in a proven fashion they are very similar in control interfaces, horsepower etc.

Compare to the Wii, it has maybe a quarter of the raw power, it has a totally differant user interface which means your interface has to be redesigned. Design takes more time, programming is more complicated, etc.

That's the thing, development on differing architectures isn't so simple. The user interfaces will have to be remapped regardless, but it isn't as if too much effort is necessary. Zelda, Nintendo's flagship product, had a lazy simplistic mapping of motion to a button. It did nothing else.

I'm asking for hard reasons, not a fluffy "oh look at how different they are". They're all differing version of the PowerPC, but the number of cores varies radically. I mean, just look at the 360's Xenon vs PS3's so called 6 SPE's. Three general cores with chipset instructions focused on floating point operations compared to a 2x concurrent setup (with a much higher rate of deadlocks and mutex issues). The development effort there, especially when we're comparing PPE/SPE to Broadway and Xenon, are both non-trivial.

So where are the facts supporting this commonly-held notion that porting to one chipset but not the other is easier?

[Elessar]

The Wii lacks the power to do a successful port for one. I dare you to try porting Half Life 2 for a Mac G3 running at 500 mhz and OS9 without radically changing core components of the game. For example.

The level of analysis here is far too superficial. Lowering the graphical quality of games is rather easy to do -- resolution, detail reduction -- and is generally supported in the engine. What we're talking about instruction set changes, which must occur for both the port to X360 and Wii.

That is non-trivial. That is what needs to be compared.

[General Zod]

That's the thing, development on differing architectures isn't so simple. The user interfaces will have to be remapped regardless, but it isn't as if too much effort is necessary. Zelda, Nintendo's flagship product, had a lazy simplistic mapping of motion to a button. It did nothing else.

I'm asking for hard reasons, not a fluffy "oh look at how different they are". They're all differing version of the PowerPC, but the number of cores varies radically. I mean, just look at the 360's Xenon vs PS3's so called 6 SPE's. Three general cores with chipset instructions focused on floating point operations compared to a 2x concurrent setup (with a much higher rate of deadlocks and mutex issues). The development effort there, especially when we're comparing PPE/SPE to Broadway and Xenon, are both non-trivial.

So where are the facts supporting this commonly-held notion that porting to one chipset but not the other is easier?

The amount of cores has very little to do with the actual architecture. Otherwise you'd have to totally rewrite software to get Windows to work between an AMD processor, a Celeron and a Pentium.

The PS3 chipset vs the Xbox is like comparing an AMD to a P4. On the otherhand the Wii vs the Xbox is like comparing a P4 to a G3 or G4 chip.

[Arrow]

The Wii lacks the power to do a successful port for one. I dare you to try porting Half Life 2 for a Mac G3 running at 500 mhz and OS9 without radically changing core components of the game. For example.

The level of analysis here is far too superficial. Lowering the graphical quality of games is rather easy to do -- resolution, detail reduction -- and is generally supported in the engine. What we're talking about instruction set changes, which must occur for both the port to X360 and Wii.

That is non-trivial. That is what needs to be compared.

And the instruction set of the CPUs is meaningless. The MS/Sony/Nintendo provide compilers handle that. The problem is the APIs and making sure you're squeezing the most out of the CPUs and GPUs. That is a high-level coding issue, and that's were the difficulties lie.

Edit: The only place you're really going to find any assemble code anymore, which targets a specific architecture, is in the GPU for shader instructions. And even that's pretty much gone the way of the dinosaur.

[Hotfoot]

How many "storytelling" RPGs were there on the original XBox? As I recall, there was a distinct lack of traditional RPGs on the system, and that was a big reason it didn't do well in Japan.

Dude, what the hell? Do you even bother reading the thread? Two are mentioned right off the bat.

Wow. Just...wow.

[Elessar]

The amount of cores has very little to do with the actual architecture. Otherwise you'd have to totally rewrite software to get Windows to work between an AMD processor, a Celeron and a Pentium.

The PS3 chipset vs the Xbox is like comparing an AMD to a P4. On the otherhand the Wii vs the Xbox is like comparing a P4 to a G3 or G4 chip.

And exactly what is your basis of comparison? Instruction set? What about the provided OS? Have you thought about the differing hardware abstraction layer? IPC? Application layer?

Do you know? Because you're assuming the OS is the same, which it isn't.

[Elessar]

And the instruction set of the CPUs is meaningless. The MS/Sony/Nintendo provide compilers handle that. The problem is the APIs and making sure you're squeezing the most out of the CPUs and GPUs. That is a high-level coding issue, and that's were the difficulties lie.

And that is based on the OS's provided capabilities, of which I do not see any analysis for. Porting is non-trivial and I just want to hear evidence beyond bullshit UI remapping (which should be abstracted already) and 'omg graphics power'.

[Ace Pace]

The amount of cores has very little to do with the actual architecture. Otherwise you'd have to totally rewrite software to get Windows to work between an AMD processor, a Celeron and a Pentium.

Oh, but in this case, it does. All the processors you mentioned(nevermind that is not a core) are all X86 processors. The Xbox360 processors and the PS3, aside from being based off the same tree(a G5 model(?) in order processor), are very differant.

The PS3 chipset vs the Xbox is like comparing an AMD to a P4. On the otherhand the Wii vs the Xbox is like comparing a P4 to a G3 or G4 chip.

First part is dead wrong, for reasons above. The Wii to Xbox360 is yes, a comparison of horsepower, but as Elessar has pointed out, it's not just a matter of horsepower.

That's the thing, development on differing architectures isn't so simple. The user interfaces will have to be remapped regardless, but it isn't as if too much effort is necessary. Zelda, Nintendo's flagship product, had a lazy simplistic mapping of motion to a button. It did nothing else.

My personal opinion is that use like that is quite boring for the Wii controller, but irrelevent, agreed.

I'm asking for hard reasons, not a fluffy "oh look at how different they are". They're all differing version of the PowerPC, but the number of cores varies radically. I mean, just look at the 360's Xenon vs PS3's so called 6 SPE's. Three general cores with chipset instructions focused on floating point operations compared to a 2x concurrent setup (with a much higher rate of deadlocks and mutex issues). The development effort there, especially when we're comparing PPE/SPE to Broadway and Xenon, are both non-trivial.

I suppose Compilers and dev tools are heavily involved in this argument, I'd have to check with some people, but I think that the actual devleopment nowdays atleast on the Xbox360 end is far higher 'level' then actual instruction set code, unlike prior generations.

[Ace Pace]

Porting is non-trivial and I just want to hear evidence beyond bullshit UI remapping (which should be abstracted already) and 'omg graphics power'.

I'm not sure to what you are referring to when you say 'bullshit UI remapping', the Xbox360 and the PS3 controllers are mostly similar, and would involve little UI changes, while the Wii should entail a very differant UI from the rest, otherwise you are wasting its controller.

[Elessar]

I'm not sure to what you are referring to when you say 'bullshit UI remapping', the Xbox360 and the PS3 controllers are mostly similar, and would involve little UI changes, while the Wii should entail a very differant UI from the rest, otherwise you are wasting its controller.

Which, as we've seen from Zelda:TP, is perfectly reasonable.

Also, remember that PS3 controllers also have motion sensors.

[Ace Pace]

Also, remember that PS3 controllers also have motion sensors.

Differant motion sensors, as far as I know, the PS3 has a Gyro, no acceleration sensor.

I can't belive IGN is a source..

The technology inside Sony's controller is a basic tilting accelerometer device. In a sense, that's the same style of control as the left hand of the Wii combination. Think of the technology as true 3D movement vs. basic tilt. The Wiimote will sense all pointing, motion and a new dimension of control, while the PS3 controller will expand only on the specific tilt functions.

What is the difference for developers?
Simply put, it's tilt vs. motion sensing. Monkey Ball for Wii and PS3 would essentially be the same, since it's only using the tilt ability of the controller. On the other hand, a 3D tennis game or sword fighting game with swing control elements is impossible for the PS3 hardware, as it requires full motion sensing technology.



What type of gameplay styles will work on the PS3 controller?
Here are a few examples: Kirby's Tilt 'n Tumble (which featured tilt control on the Game Boy Color), Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam, racing games (using the tilt to rotate), flight sims, Monkey Ball, fishing (flick the tilt controller).

What type of things won't work on the PS3 controller?
The following actions can't be done on the PS3 controller with the same precision: Throwing/Catching a ball at a specific spot shown on screen, swinging a sword in 3D space and performing stabbing motions, aiming a weapon light-gun-style, swinging a racket, punching, general 3D item interaction, 3D drum simulator, swatting an "on-screen" fly, performing two separate tilt/motion functions at the same time.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

You mean MGS4 right?

I'll probably shoot m'self in the face if MGS4 jumps ship completely.. cause that'll be the death knell of the PS3 as well as Blu-Ray.

I think Blu-ray will be just fine and dandy with or without the PS3, considering that the format is currently outselling HD-DVD by more than 2-1.

[Darth Fanboy]

FUCK YES! FFXIII was the only thing that even had me debating a PS3. IF it comes out for the 360 or Wii, then it will make DF A very happy boy.

[Rawtooth]

How many "storytelling" RPGs were there on the original XBox? As I recall, there was a distinct lack of traditional RPGs on the system, and that was a big reason it didn't do well in Japan.

Knights of the Old Republic I & II, Jade Empire, Lord of the Rings - The 3rd Age, and Fable. The only other big RPG for the XBox would be Morrowind really.

[Ace Pace]

The Wii lacks the power to do a successful port for one. I dare you to try porting Half Life 2 for a Mac G3 running at 500 mhz and OS9 without radically changing core components of the game. For example.

The level of analysis here is far too superficial. Lowering the graphical quality of games is rather easy to do -- resolution, detail reduction -- and is generally supported in the engine. What we're talking about instruction set changes, which must occur for both the port to X360 and Wii.

That is non-trivial. That is what needs to be compared.

And the instruction set of the CPUs is meaningless. The MS/Sony/Nintendo provide compilers handle that. The problem is the APIs and making sure you're squeezing the most out of the CPUs and GPUs. That is a high-level coding issue, and that's were the difficulties lie.

Edit: The only place you're really going to find any assemble code anymore, which targets a specific architecture, is in the GPU for shader instructions. And even that's pretty much gone the way of the dinosaur.

And a Mark Rein quote for the win!

We designed the engine to run on all three of those platforms so nobody
needs to "port" it to anything as the engine already works on them.
Sorry can't go into any more detail than that.

[/quote]

[Arrow]

And a Mark Rein quote for the win!

We designed the engine to run on all three of those platforms so nobody
needs to "port" it to anything as the engine already works on them.
Sorry can't go into any more detail than that.

Gotta love Middleware!

[DPDarkPrimus]

How many "storytelling" RPGs were there on the original XBox? As I recall, there was a distinct lack of traditional RPGs on the system, and that was a big reason it didn't do well in Japan.

Knights of the Old Republic I & II, Jade Empire, Lord of the Rings - The 3rd Age, and Fable.

Not a single one of which was a "traditional" RPG.

[Invictus ChiKen]

A 360 port will be good for U.S. sales, not Japanese.

Thing is, in terms of effort, a 360 port is a peice of cake compared to a Wii port.

Assumption in the previous post: 360 owners are likely to enjoy and embrace the Final Fantasy series. As I said earlier, the only RPG's to do well on the X-Box were 'sandbox', not 'storytelling'.

How many "storytelling" RPGs were there on the original XBox? As I recall, there was a distinct lack of traditional RPGs on the system, and that was a big reason it didn't do well in Japan.

An there WAS a demand according to the Offical Mags on this side of the Pacific as well for Japanese style RPGS...

[Hotfoot]

How many "storytelling" RPGs were there on the original XBox? As I recall, there was a distinct lack of traditional RPGs on the system, and that was a big reason it didn't do well in Japan.

Knights of the Old Republic I & II, Jade Empire, Lord of the Rings - The 3rd Age, and Fable.

Not a single one of which was a "traditional" RPG.

Now you're splitting hairs. The emphasis was "on rails" versus "sandbox". Not "blue box menu" vs. "anything else".

Edit: Also, LOTS of people were pointing out that LOTR-3rd Age was an airbrushed version of FFX

[UCBooties]

Hotfoot, when the majority of the console gaming community says "traditional RPG" they mean turn based RPG in the Japanese style. KOTOR I and II as well as Jade Empire owed much more to Balder's Gate and NWN then they did to FF, DQ, or any other JRPG series. Fable and Morrowind were both adventure RPGs born out of the American Role Playing tradition. This means that the original x-box had one RPG which might be considered traditional and it was a lazy third tier movie cash-in. I think it's safe to say that the original x-box's library would have been disappointing to fans of JRPGs.

[Imperial Overlord]

Hotfoot, when the majority of the console gaming community says "traditional RPG" they mean turn based RPG in the Japanese style. KOTOR I and II as well as Jade Empire owed much more to Balder's Gate and NWN then they did to FF, DQ, or any other JRPG series. Fable and Morrowind were both adventure RPGs born out of the American Role Playing tradition. This means that the original x-box had one RPG which might be considered traditional and it was a lazy third tier movie cash-in. I think it's safe to say that the original x-box's library would have been disappointing to fans of JRPGs.

Jesus fucking Christ, what a narrow definition of "traditional". The Bioware RPGs are essentially turn based, they just don't make the existence of the turn obvious.

[UCBooties]

Yeah it's narrow, but most people, including editors of the gaming press, draw a line between Japanese RPGs and Western developed ones. So to the console gaming community, a traditional RPG is one built from the Japanese tradition with a certain style of story. Is there honestly any question as to whether KOTOR owes more to PC Roleplayers or JRPGs?

Edit: And if they're not making the turns obvious, that would certainly be a distinction wouldn't it? Turn based RPGs attempt to give a player moment to moment control, Bioware's attempt to give the player the impression of streaming action.

[Hotfoot]

Hotfoot, when the majority of the console gaming community says "traditional RPG" they mean turn based RPG in the Japanese style. KOTOR I and II as well as Jade Empire owed much more to Balder's Gate and NWN then they did to FF, DQ, or any other JRPG series. Fable and Morrowind were both adventure RPGs born out of the American Role Playing tradition. This means that the original x-box had one RPG which might be considered traditional and it was a lazy third tier movie cash-in. I think it's safe to say that the original x-box's library would have been disappointing to fans of JRPGs.

Yeah, well when the most recent in THOSE series have been real-time and owing more and more to the US style of RPGs, you'll see where I laugh at that distinction. KOTOR was turn-based and pausable to execute commands at any time, the action simply played out in real time. So did Jade Empire.

JRPGs are continually becoming more freeform, both in the areas of character advancement and what players can do, though I guess DQ remains the same forever. Whatever. FF11 was also pretty popular in Japan, and that was a friggin' MMO.

But hey, I guess in order to qualify to be "on rails" you need some annoying brat with spikey hair, right?

Really though, to me, the big difference, mechanically, between your average JRPG and KOTOR was that your moral decisions mattered, forcing you to think about the consequences of your actions. Other than that, let's go down the list:

-Amnesiac Main Character. Check
-Annoying female love interest. Check
-Turn-Based Combat. Check
-Ranged weapons being near useless. Check
-Linear Plot. Half-Check, since there were really two plots with minor variations. OH NO TWO GAMES IN ONE!
-Silly little minigames, perhaps involving cards. Check.
-Cutscenes. Check.
-WHAT A TWIST! Check.
-Anemic boss battle. Check.

Big differences? The interface to choose the actions of your party, everyone acted at the same time, there was no huge-breasted woman dressed like a slut, no cute mascot (unless you count HK-47), and a few minor bits, like the hit point numbers were pretty small.

Compare it to a game like, oh, FF12, and even some of those differences fade away. So I guess it's okay when Final Fantasy does these crazy things like realtime combat where everyone acts together and ranges mean something, but not anyone else, right?

Fucking hell, what is with this anyway? The goalposts keep getting pushed back. First it's a question about RPGs on rails, then "traditional" RPGs, then JRPGs. Is it so hard to ask the question you want the answer for first?

[Imperial Overlord]

Edit: And if they're not making the turns obvious, that would certainly be a distinction wouldn't it? Turn based RPGs attempt to give a player moment to moment control, Bioware's attempt to give the player the impression of streaming action.

Yes, how evil of Bioware to attempt to give us a more immersive experience. How dare they attempt to innovate and improve the gaming experience.

I'm sorry, but really anyone who insists on their RPGs be the exact same format as they were back when they were on Super Nintendo or whatever is pathetic. More capable hardware should produce a game that does more than just look prettier.

[Hotfoot]

Yeah it's narrow, but most people, including editors of the gaming press, draw a line between Japanese RPGs and Western developed ones. So to the console gaming community, a traditional RPG is one built from the Japanese tradition with a certain style of story. Is there honestly any question as to whether KOTOR owes more to PC Roleplayers or JRPGs?

Edit: And if they're not making the turns obvious, that would certainly be a distinction wouldn't it? Turn based RPGs attempt to give a player moment to moment control, Bioware's attempt to give the player the impression of streaming action.

What, the fucking queue of actions isn't obvious? Holy hell what the fuck is wrong with you?