Very well Optimized for Xbox 360.

[Enkeixpress]

According to the latest footage of Just Cause 2.. It's running extremely well, no lag or anything from what I can see which is fantastic!

See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWdivIUC9T8


Extremely optimized,right? Must be at least 30-50 fps.. Now.. I can't say the same for the PS3 version unfortunately as no footage has been found for it.. But umm.. I can't see why it wouldn't be any different apart from some slight lag maybe? .. I've just got a hunch that the fps will be lower, that's all.

[gandenkris]

i really hope so much that the ps3 version is just as good.... and it is pretty great that the game which has both amazing graphics and the biggest open world (besides some random racing games) ever has no lag or anything. but maybe it will when the games released... lets hope not!

[HHDnBKing!]

Originally Posted by Enkeixpress

I can't say the same for the PS3 version unfortunately as no footage has been found for it.

You haven't looked very hard

[JakeD.Parker]

the ps3 runs call of duty modern warfare + number 2 better, and that runs at 60 frames, so i think theyll be the same , people just like the xbox controller more so they always show off on xbox, and because micrsoft pays them 2

[GeorgeRobo]

Doesn't the PS3 have more cores in its processor anyway? So it should run better than the 360. I think the OP is being very presumptuous saying its "optimized" for the 360 when we've had no news or seven hit of this being true.

[Poor Bison]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRobo

Doesn't the PS3 have more cores in its processor anyway? So it should run better than the 360. I think the OP is being very presumptuous saying its "optimized" for the 360 when we've had no news or seven hit of this being true.

Actually, its been said that the 360 is the lead development console for this game but the PS3 and PC versions are getting alot of care to ensure they run just as well as the 360 version. Each version will likely exceed the others in different ways.

More processor cores doesn't necessarily mean greater performance.

[JakeD.Parker]

Originally Posted by Poor Bison

Actually, its been said that the 360 is the lead development console for this game but the PS3 and PC versions are getting alot of care to ensure they run just as well as the 360 version. Each version will likely exceed the others in different ways.

More processor cores doesn't necessarily mean greater performance.

yes but it can if its used right,

[matonking]

Originally Posted by Poor Bison

Actually, its been said that the 360 is the lead development console for this game but the PS3 and PC versions are getting alot of care to ensure they run just as well as the 360 version. Each version will likely exceed the others in different ways.

More processor cores doesn't necessarily mean greater performance.

1. i'm about 90% posistive that i heard them say they " we've been developing the game simultaneously for the xbox, ps3 and pc. and that each the consoles will not dissapoint"

2. yes it does lol.

BUT THIS IS GOING TO TURN INTO A CONSOLE WAR... so please... lets stop this.. its already been done like 4 times already in the past 2 days... probably due to lack of news frustration...

[Poor Bison]

Originally Posted by JakeD.Parker

yes but it can if its used right,

Oh absolutely, I wasn't attempting to apply it as a general term. There is no doubt that a PS3 exclusive game, developed and designed for the PS3 would run terribly on the Xbox 360.

Originally Posted by matonking

1. i'm about 90% posistive that i heard them say they " we've been developing the game simultaneously for the xbox, ps3 and pc. and that each the consoles will not dissapoint"

2. yes it does lol.

BUT THIS IS GOING TO TURN INTO A CONSOLE WAR... so please... lets stop this.. its already been done like 4 times already in the past 2 days... probably due to lack of news frustration...

1) I heard differently somewhere, however your statement rings a bell to. Either way, it really makes no difference. A few extra frames per second here-and-there aren't exactly a bold statement to determine which console is better.

2) No it doesn't.

Also, no it wont. Well, in theory, this shouldn't turn into a console war. All of my replies, at least, have attempted to remain unbiased and balanced in favour of both consoles. If they are interpreted differently, then so be it!

[matonking]

Originally Posted by Poor Bison

Oh absolutely, I wasn't attempting to apply it as a general term. There is no doubt that a PS3 exclusive game, developed and designed for the PS3 would run terribly on the Xbox 360.

1) I heard differently somewhere, however your statement rings a bell to. Either way, it really makes no difference. A few extra frames per second here-and-there aren't exactly a bold statement to determine which console is better.

2) No it doesn't.

Also, no it wont. Well, in theory, this shouldn't turn into a console war. All of my replies, at least, have attempted to remain unbiased and balanced in favour of both consoles. If they are interpreted differently, then so be it!

2. yes it does,

1x core = 1 core doing everything from xbox OS to lighting to physics.
8x core = 1 dedicated to ps3 operation, 7 left over.. 1 for lighting.. 1 for physics.. 1 for.. e.t.c

more cores means for smoother operation, otherwise whats the point in putting so many?
ever hear the phrase " more hands make lighter work?"

3 of ps3's cpus = 1 xbox's... which is why the ps3 has 2.5 times more processing power

[GeorgeRobo]

To be honest this game is going to be amazing whatever console its played on, but it would be nice to get just a bit of PS3 footage to please us PS3 owners :P

[Poor Bison]

Originally Posted by matonking

2. yes it does,

1x core = 1 core doing everything from xbox OS to lighting to physics.
8x core = 1 dedicated to ps3 operation, 7 left over.. 1 for lighting.. 1 for physics.. 1 for.. e.t.c

more cores means for smoother operation, otherwise whats the point in putting so many?
ever hear the phrase " more hands make lighter work?"

3 of ps3's cpus = 1 xbox's... which is why the ps3 has 2.5 times more processing power

Initially you said 1x core for the Xbox 360, but you appeared to correct this later on. To clarify, the Xbox 360 has a 3.2Ghz tri-core processor. 3 symmetrical cores, running simultaneously.

The cores, as you have said, are all general purpose. As opposed to the Cell processor in the PS3 which as you mentioned are all threaded for a different purpose.

After the basic layout of facts, there appeared to be a significant gap between the number crunching and the "more cores = smoother operation" statement. We need to keep this debate in the context of the Xbox 360 vs the PS3, so we need to remember how differently these processors work (despite being based on similar architecture) and why I initially made my first comment.

So lets pretend for a moment (if we remove Just Cause 2 from the debate) that a game has been developed for the 360 utilising its Xenon processor and it is being ported to the Playstation 3. Now, obviously when developing exclusively for the Playstation 3 the developers have input from the start as to processor threading, etc, and as a result (as I previously said, a Playstation 3 exclusive would indeed beat an Xbox 360 exclusive in terms of performance and quality) the game would work far better.

However, with a game on the PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 when the developers start to have a more difficult time attaining the same level of quality with the PS3's unique and more complex processor, you will commonly find that they simply take a shortcut and opt to use it like a regular processor, which will effect the performance as the PS3 is designed with a synergistic approach (Wherein, all the cores work independently towards the final goal, rather than sharing an equal load such as the Xbox 360) and may suffer as a result.

Now, I am not saying this is the case with Just Cause 2. It has become apparent that Avalanche intend to make full use of the capabilities of all consoles, however they are still unlikely to be using the full power of the PS3 due to issues with developing the PC and Xbox 360 versions concurrently. We will only truly be able to see the PS3's overall power nearing the end of its lifetime, and probably only on exclusive games.

In its current state, the PS3 performs equally or less-than-equally with the Xbox 360. I must stress, this is only because of the shared and/or ported games. Obviously, this works the other way around to. I have no preference of console, and always enjoy comparing them as long as I am out to prove an independent point, rather than proving one of the other.

Which brings me back to saying that more cores does not automatically equal greater performance. Hopefully in the context of my post, you understand my point of view

This is my second long post tonight. I apologise for any grammatical and/or spelling errors as I am exceptionally tired at the moment

[Peardan]

So you basically get what we do in the end. hahaha >:^D

[JakeD.Parker]

Originally Posted by Poor Bison

Initially you said 1x core for the Xbox 360, but you appeared to correct this later on. To clarify, the Xbox 360 has a 3.2Ghz tri-core processor. 3 symmetrical cores, running simultaneously.

The cores, as you have said, are all general purpose. As opposed to the Cell processor in the PS3 which as you mentioned are all threaded for a different purpose.

After the basic layout of facts, there appeared to be a significant gap between the number crunching and the "more cores = smoother operation" statement. We need to keep this debate in the context of the Xbox 360 vs the PS3, so we need to remember how differently these processors work (despite being based on similar architecture) and why I initially made my first comment.

So lets pretend for a moment (if we remove Just Cause 2 from the debate) that a game has been developed for the 360 utilising its Xenon processor and it is being ported to the Playstation 3. Now, obviously when developing exclusively for the Playstation 3 the developers have input from the start as to processor threading, etc, and as a result (as I previously said, a Playstation 3 exclusive would indeed beat an Xbox 360 exclusive in terms of performance and quality) the game would work far better.

However, with a game on the PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 when the developers start to have a more difficult time attaining the same level of quality with the PS3's unique and more complex processor, you will commonly find that they simply take a shortcut and opt to use it like a regular processor, which will effect the performance as the PS3 is designed with a synergistic approach (Wherein, all the cores work independently towards the final goal, rather than sharing an equal load such as the Xbox 360) and may suffer as a result.

Now, I am not saying this is the case with Just Cause 2. It has become apparent that Avalanche intend to make full use of the capabilities of all consoles, however they are still unlikely to be using the full power of the PS3 due to issues with developing the PC and Xbox 360 versions concurrently. We will only truly be able to see the PS3's overall power nearing the end of its lifetime, and probably only on exclusive games.

In its current state, the PS3 performs equally or less-than-equally with the Xbox 360. I must stress, this is only because of the shared and/or ported games. Obviously, this works the other way around to. I have no preference of console, and always enjoy comparing them as long as I am out to prove an independent point, rather than proving one of the other.

Which brings me back to saying that more cores does not automatically equal greater performance. Hopefully in the context of my post, you understand my point of view

This is my second long post tonight. I apologise for any grammatical and/or spelling errors as I am exceptionally tired at the moment

I see what your saying, but no game on the xbox comes close to looking like killzone 2 or drakes fortune.. ? why. because ps3 has better hardware, its just easy to use 360 hardware

[NEREVAR117]

Originally Posted by JakeD.Parker

I see what your saying, but no game on the xbox comes close to looking like killzone 2 or drakes fortune.. ? why. because ps3 has better hardware, its just easy to use 360 hardware

That's highly arguable. Just so you know.

Drakes Fortune is easily already outdated and Killzone 2 isn't really as impressive as people make it out too be. I personally thought FarCry 2 and Resident Evil 5 looked better, along with possibly Gears of War 2. Oh, and Alan Wake has the best graphics on the consoles, judging by the images. But of course this is my opinion, just as anything is.

[danieltimm]

Originally Posted by JakeD.Parker

because ps3 has better hardware, its just easy to use 360 hardware

that's not correct ... the ps3 has a better prozesszor but the 360 has a better graphikcard

[JC 2]

Originally Posted by Enkeixpress

According to the latest footage of Just Cause 2.. It's running extremely well, no lag or anything from what I can see which is fantastic!

See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWdivIUC9T8


Extremely optimized,right? Must be at least 30-50 fps.. Now.. I can't say the same for the PS3 version unfortunately as no footage has been found for it.. But umm.. I can't see why it wouldn't be any different apart from some slight lag maybe? .. I've just got a hunch that the fps will be lower, that's all.

look at 2:20 is that a hot air balloon ?

[JakeD.Parker]

Originally Posted by NEREVAR117

That's highly arguable. Just so you know.

Drakes Fortune is easily already outdated and Killzone 2 isn't really as impressive as people make it out too be. I personally thought FarCry 2 and Resident Evil 5 looked better, along with possibly Gears of War 2. Oh, and Alan Wake has the best graphics on the consoles, judging by the images. But of course this is my opinion, just as anything is.

thats true, far cry 2 did look amazing, to me though, uncharted 2 and killzone 2 are the graphically best games to come to a console, and will be i reckon until crysis 2 hits

[NEREVAR117]

Originally Posted by JakeD.Parker

thats true, far cry 2 did look amazing, to me though, uncharted 2 and killzone 2 are the graphically best games to come to a console, and will be i reckon until crysis 2 hits

I do think U2 looks gorgeous. =3

And Crysis 2 will probably look breathtaking!

[Frank the Bunny]

Originally Posted by JC 2

look at 2:20 is that a hot air balloon ?

That is the blimp that we are all dying to learn the purpose of.

[matonking]

Originally Posted by Poor Bison

Initially you said 1x core for the Xbox 360, but you appeared to correct this later on. To clarify, the Xbox 360 has a 3.2Ghz tri-core processor. 3 symmetrical cores, running simultaneously.

The cores, as you have said, are all general purpose. As opposed to the Cell processor in the PS3 which as you mentioned are all threaded for a different purpose.

After the basic layout of facts, there appeared to be a significant gap between the number crunching and the "more cores = smoother operation" statement. We need to keep this debate in the context of the Xbox 360 vs the PS3, so we need to remember how differently these processors work (despite being based on similar architecture) and why I initially made my first comment.

So lets pretend for a moment (if we remove Just Cause 2 from the debate) that a game has been developed for the 360 utilising its Xenon processor and it is being ported to the Playstation 3. Now, obviously when developing exclusively for the Playstation 3 the developers have input from the start as to processor threading, etc, and as a result (as I previously said, a Playstation 3 exclusive would indeed beat an Xbox 360 exclusive in terms of performance and quality) the game would work far better.

However, with a game on the PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 when the developers start to have a more difficult time attaining the same level of quality with the PS3's unique and more complex processor, you will commonly find that they simply take a shortcut and opt to use it like a regular processor, which will effect the performance as the PS3 is designed with a synergistic approach (Wherein, all the cores work independently towards the final goal, rather than sharing an equal load such as the Xbox 360) and may suffer as a result.

Now, I am not saying this is the case with Just Cause 2. It has become apparent that Avalanche intend to make full use of the capabilities of all consoles, however they are still unlikely to be using the full power of the PS3 due to issues with developing the PC and Xbox 360 versions concurrently. We will only truly be able to see the PS3's overall power nearing the end of its lifetime, and probably only on exclusive games.

In its current state, the PS3 performs equally or less-than-equally with the Xbox 360. I must stress, this is only because of the shared and/or ported games. Obviously, this works the other way around to. I have no preference of console, and always enjoy comparing them as long as I am out to prove an independent point, rather than proving one of the other.

Which brings me back to saying that more cores does not automatically equal greater performance. Hopefully in the context of my post, you understand my point of view

This is my second long post tonight. I apologise for any grammatical and/or spelling errors as I am exceptionally tired at the moment

For someone who's tired, you jsut owned me!!

I couldnt agree with you more.

The problem with games currently is that developers dont have the time/facility to push the ps3's full potential.

Most are, as you said, a port from xbox..

when crysis comes out for xbox, ps3 and pc.. which are currently all being built seperately and to each's full potential.. then we will see the true differences in performance!.

2-3 years from now though, i think the difference in performance will as aparent as 2-3 years ago.. pre-ps3.

really looking forward to it!

[GeorgeRobo]

Originally Posted by danieltimm

that's not correct ... the ps3 has a better prozesszor but the 360 has a better graphikcard

And I have better spelling.

[matonking]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRobo

And I have better spelling.

you've never heard of prozesszors and graphikcards?? they're the new craze

[MonkeyBanana]

Why are you making this thread? To start the console wars again?

[Enkeixpress]

Originally Posted by MonkeyBanana

Why are you making this thread? To start the console wars again?

Nope.

Just look at the footage, It is of the Xbox 360 version, correct? And it looks very smooth, correct?

So then this thread was made to show that.