I hear talk from frogboy and such about multi platform gaming and they say that they cant put the games they want on a 512 MB console. A completely fair and valid point. But do both consoles only have 512 mbs of ram? The ps3 has games like MAG with 256 players. surely that would require more than 512 MBs of ram. Have any pc devs ever looked at the ps3 instead of the xbox?
no it has 512 MB (http://us.playstation.com/ps3/techspecs/120gb.html)
For one thing, there are three consoles, not two. Why does everyone always ignore the Wii? The Wii also has 512 MB of RAM.
Trying to compare the hardware of a console and the hardware of a PC is an apples to oranges comparison. Also, in reality the PS3 has only 256 MB of RAM, the other 256 MB are for the video memory.
Players don't take up a lot of RAM when they all look alike. But they don't tend to look alike in PC games, which is why nobody has succeeded in making a proper MMO on a console (despite many attempts). You just can't fit everything that is going on in the amount of memory available.
You can really see the limits in a game like Mass Effect 2, with all the loading screens and limited number of anything that can be in any one area.
"But they don't tend to look alike in PC games"? Looking at WOW or Lineage 2 and actually ALOT more of PC MMOs. Ya they do. And FFXI which has your standard amount of faces and armor and looks as most PC mmos runs super fine on the 360.
PS3 has 512mb shared for like 2 things. So really at times it can be half. But MAG looks and runs great, and i think there are many skins shown. Havent played it but heard you can customize your characters face and loadout.So..
The 360, even though this site says it is shared 512, i think its dedicated.
Its funny how these devs are like oh ya you can run this game on a netbook. But on a console where you can play games with graphics 10xs better than Elementals and has realistic physics and shadowing, that 512mb ram wont work... ok.
Its all you design it. Not about specs. I think some PC fanboys dont see that.
Look at PS1/ PC games. Man PS1 had like 33mhz and 2 mb of ram and 2VRAM. But to run Legacay of Kain, or FF7, or a few others on the PC you needed litteraly 10xs the specs (or more) the PS1 had.
Granted the weakest part of every console released was the limited ram. But 512 can carry it a long way. Imagine 4gbs of Ram on a console. Not much to PC users, but im sure that consoles will take that 4gigs and do AMAZING stuff with it.
The OS has a lot of overhead and takes up an enormous amount of RAM. Similarily, console RAM (I know in the PS3's vRAM at least) is specially designed to only be stored for a few frames and sacrifices stability for speed because of that fact.
LOL because the Wii isn't for real games. It is for family games. Don't get me wrong I have a Wii for my wife and son, and love the Wii. Especially when my Mom and sisters come over. Wii Sport's Games rock for big family gatherings.
That's BS. Just because most of the games are family/party games doesn't mean they aren't "real games." Super Mario Galaxy and the Legend of Zelda are a hell of a lot better than a lot of "real games."
Uh, but they're kiddy games with cartoony graphics. Using Metroid games as an example of real games on the Wii would be much better.
Since most of the people on multiplayer for games like Halo 3, CoD, and pretty much all "real games" are immature 12 year olds, does that mean they're "kiddy games" too? And if we're going to start using graphics as a measure of how good a game it, that means all of the 8-bit classics are automatically discluded, as well as anything that wasn't made in the last couple years. Games like World of Goo can't be good either, because despite being challenging and fun, it has "cartoony graphics."
Wow okay, from the tone of your response I must have hit a nerve and offended. My appologies I was just being a smartass in that response for the most part. No offense was intended.
But on the serious side. When I say as a console compared to the PS and XBox the Wii doesn't matter. My point of veiw is that the Wii while a console, it actually is a different beast all together. It's basic principle and implementation sets it apart from the other two in such a way that you can't really lump in in the same category in any but the most basic of ways.
The Wii was built for family freindly programming and as such almost all the games on it revolve, look, and behave like that.
Will you find a FPS on the Wii that compares to MAG?
Will you Find an RPG that can compare to FF13 ?
Will you Find an RTS that compares to Halo Wars?
Will you find a Racer that compares to Gran Turismo?
Will you Find a Sports game that compares to Madden?
Will you find a Action Game that Compares to Drake's Fortune?
No not to any of them, And that pretty much covered the genre's the console has locked down at this point.
On the flip side what the Wii does do, it does Phenomally well
Wii Sport's Resort, Super Mario World, Wii Fit, Endless Ocean, It's Motion Control System. These are the Wii's Hallmark and its claim to fame. But these things are not what you think about when you think of the hard core gamer. These are family freindly content made to appeal to a completely different demographic then we are for the most part here. When the Wii has tried to enter into those above categories making comparable titles to the above. It has failed miserably, This is not a flaw of the console (or it might be, I don't know enough of what the Wii can support that way), but this is a failing of the Devs of the Wii games.
So when we talk about consoles comparing to the PC yeah we pretty much ignore the Wii as a non issue.
P.S. Author's Note: I own and have played Zelda for the Wii. not a bad game but I personally found it lacking so thats why in my comparison it doesn't match up to FF13. In someone elses mind it might, but for the purposes of my reveiw it can't. Again this is a personal distinction.
Haha, yeah, I suppose I could have toned that response down a little I just find it annoying that most people completely ignore the Wii, despite it being arguably the most successful of the current generation of consoles. Even when the discussion is purely Xbox360 vs. PS3 with no mention of the PC, people ignore the Wii and the fact that it blew both of the others out of the water. The executives and Microsoft and Sony obviously aren't, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing Natal and Move, but the fans do, which, in my opinion, is stupid.
However, you are right, the Wii is a different animal. I just wish it didn't always get shunted aside, because I think given the opportunity, it could be amazing at many of the genres you pointed out. Just to choose one example, I'll go with RTS.
RTS's have a long history of sucking on consoles, and I don't think Halo Wars is any exception. They pale in comparison to PC RTS's (take your pick; Sins of a Solar Empire, C&C (before it went downhill), Starcraft, Supreme Commander (not 2), etc). The controls don't adapt well to consoles. However, I think the Wii could be the console to change that, if anyone bothered to try. The Wii remote, in many ways, is similar to a PC mouse, and I think the point+click nature of it would work perfectly for an RTS.
Point+shoot for an FPS should also be amazing, but so far most attempts to make one on the Wii have flopped. A lot of people like to blame the console itself, saying it's "not powerful enough," etc, but I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that no one has given it a real try. They're mostly half-hearted ports of games for the other consoles. If someone like Bungie or Infinity Ward made a solid effort at a Wii-dedicated FPS, it would probably be incredible.
But the problem is that no one is willing to try, because as it has already been pointed out, the Wii has a reputation for being "kiddy" and "family friendly," and a large part of that is Nintendo's fault for promoting it. Because of that reputation, developers are unwilling to make an effort at "hardcore" games.
So yeah, that's my rant for the day
PS: Personally, I disagree with many of your choices for games, but like you said, it's a matter of opinion.
FFXI looks very dated, actually. And people only look alike in WoW at high level because of Blizzard's thing with armor sets that are easy to get and look alike. Look at a game with a cosmetic equipment system like LotRO. You can get 200 people in a room and no two will look the same.
Realistic physics and shadowing take up CPU/GPU time more then they do RAM. It's data that chews up RAM, and data is where you find console games lacking. Things like highly complex datasets, and high-res textures just aren't there.
Not to mention that Elemental with a gamepad simply wouldn't work that well.
Console hardware is specialized to do certain things, so part of that isn't surprising. Part of it is windows. And part of it is just due to how badly ported some games are (like say FF13 for the 360, which was just godawful when put up against the 360 version).
And it's also about specs. There are some things you fundamentally cannot do in 512MB of RAM.
Okay so yeah Halo Wars was a horrible example. RTS are still the bastion of the PC lol. I will admit I was stretching with that one kinda bad.
As for disagreeing with my choices....
Also while I am thinking about it. I think the controllers of the Wii hurt it in alot of regards. Was thinking of Super Mario World. Liked the game but there were many a time I was wishing for a standard console controller.
MAG is a server-based game. The PS3 doesn’t have to do much processing in a game like that. the number of players is therefore irrelevant.
BS. I have real games on the Wii.
On my keyboard I have 118 keys. My mouse occupies an infinite 2D plane and has four keys. Between these two input devices, and the standard tasks associated with a strategy game (such as manipulating an unbounded 2D plane!) what does the controller offer that makes it good at handling a PC RTS?
There's no reason I couldn't plug in my Xbox controller into my PC and "try" to play Starcraft with it. But I wouldn't enjoy it. On the other hand, I do know someone that plays it with a tablet (there's that tool designed to manipulate a 2D plane again! That seems to be key here.) so a mouse isn't the only way.
No, the PS3 has fixed 256 for video and 256 for system. The 360 has the 512 shared.
It comes down to three things: RAM RAM RAM.
Consoles can produce great graphics, great performance and great physics because they have very specialized processors that handle that. But they can't store a lot of different things at once because of lack of memory.
Someone saying that a truck is better than a Porsche for hauling stuff doesn't make someone a truck "fan boy" nor does it mean that the truck is better than a Porche. It just means that a truck is better for hauling stuff than a Porche.
Next time you're playing Oblivion on the console and wondering why every cave and bar looks basically the same, the answer is: RAM.
I don't understand this thread at all... Even if Elemental did come out for the consoles... I'd still get the PC version.
If your PC sucks you've been told not to worry as Elemental will be quite flexible
If you have little RAM... Whats wrong with you? Ram is CHEAP, go buy more!
One way or the other, despite the scenarios I can visualize there is just no good reason to argue the point about Elemental going to consoles. Other then being a fanboy perhaps.
I don't have a problem with games going to console. The problem is when the developers are designing a cross platform game that they claim won't be a port but clealry were keeping the limitations of the conosles in mind when they made it. Graphics, GUI, the lack of camera control, not a lot of settings... so many things come up in these cross platforms titles. Speaking as a Wii player as well as a PC gamer, some of these publishers/developers are unreal to think their stripped down, not made for the Wii ports would sell well. It's not a one way street you know.
LOL so true. I would never buy Sport's Resort for the PC. The Wii makes this shine. any other system would just be a dud.
It certainly takes some getting used to, but I don't think the motion controls hurt any games. Except for the ones where the developers implement them poorly, but there's nothing new about that; games with bad controls have been around far longer than motion control.
The motion controls of the Wii do exactly that, "manipulate a 2d plane," which is why I think it could work for an RTS. Maybe not on the scale of Sins or the first Supreme Commander, but something C&C or Starcarft sized. Plus, the Wii can actually do 3d movement, something a mouse cannot.
To add to that, the reason a Netbook can't handle it with more RAM (usually they have ~ 1 GB) is because a lot of that is being eaten up by other resources (your im chat client, Windows or Linux, your web browser in the background that you forgot to close, etc).
Also, my "truck" has a rocket engine :3
I've said it before and I'll say it again; Microsoft needs to make a 'gaming os' for PCs.
Windows wastes a lot of resources for those only interested in gaming.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
