[QUOTE="piercetruth34"]
[QUOTE="Shattered007"] To me, this proves that your whole thread was nothing more then a fishing expo to bash the 360. Also, games that have been devloped for the PS3 first (Burnout Paridise, I believe Dark Sector and Dead Space) showlittle if any advantages on the PS3. Killzone 2 is just a bar setter not unlike Gears of War was. I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of this year it is outdone by a 360 game.
I wonder if graphical powerhouses like Alan Wake will be ingored on the 360 simply due to it's higer resoltion on the the PC.
Shattered007
are people *******? I say yes. I wasn't bashing the 360. I was just asking a question lol. The fact is both systems are drastically different architectures. The cell has a single core and 7 spu's. Those spu's can be utilized to do various tasks whether it's geometry, process sound etc.. The gpu(RSX) is basically a glorified pc graphics card that pushes polygons but doesn't do a whole lot as far as shaders and processing certain things itself. The 360's gpu has an advanced shader architecture. You can tell the difference in the games. If you look at the models. The environments in gears are actually more detailed and it's rendering certain thigns i'm not sure the ps3 can like organic matter on the environments. killzone the environments are more realistic looking and there is more going on as far as realistic physics but it's not rendering with the same detail. The textures themselves are actually redundant a lot of the time and not as detailed. Look at mlb the show for example. There is a ton of stuff going on from a physics perspective i'm not sure the 360 would be able to pull off, but the player models themselves are actually not of as high a quality and are kind of bland and not as detailed or organic. If you look at mlb 2k9 on the 360 it runs much better than the ps3 because hte ps3 struggles rendering certain things. They are drastically different architectures. If you notice in a still shot the 360 usually looks better and more detailed. Player models have a more organic look to them, etc. But from a physics perspective and what is actually going on this isn't always the case. Blu-ray as well as the cell are capable of doing things the xenon and xenos aren't and vice versa. If you notice the cinematics and cut sccenes are usually of higher quality on the ps3 because of blu-ray for one is able to hold and process more data, plus hte cell can output certain things the 360 can't. From a straight graphics pushing perspective the 360 is actually more powerful and can push higher quality graphics to the screen due to it's gpu.
It goes both ways is all i'm saying. We actually probably never will see certain images that are outputted on the 360 on the ps3 because the ps3 can't render certain things. But i tend to think the cell has it's own strengths and can do certain things the 360 can't because the cell and it's spu's can divide tasks up and take a lot of the load off the graphics chip. It's a different design and hence games need to be designed differently for both systems. From a multiplat perspective the ps3 is less powerful because it's a single core and the graphics chip isnt as feature rich. Yes I'm sure these developers when porting do sometimes utilize the spu's to do various tasks to make them run better and are getting better at it, but i still don't think multiplats are designing games per say to fully take advantage of them. I think it's more just to get their games to run right.
The only point i'm trying to make is games need to be developed differently for each system to take full advantage of them because they are different. I was more posing a question and hoping i wouldn't get the proverbial fanboy responses here.
My feeling is the cell is ahead of it's time. Having a single core and a limited graphics chip holds it back somewhat because most developers are still going the route of the 360 with multiple cores and an advanced gpu. This is also microsoft's muscle in the market and it's a battle of technology in this regard and what direction developers want to go. I personally think the ps3 has it's own strengths which it's showing with it's exclusives. Sony markets their system with it's power of the cell moniker because the spu's and blu-ray are the strength of it's system. If you remember the days of the Atari ST and the Amiga, there's a similar thing going on here. The Atari is the 360 in this instance and the ps3 is the amiga. It was the same thing with Risc back in the day.
It's sad that you edited your post 10 times and yet you still didn't fix the pretty obvious violation... All I was saying is that if you already made up you mind about the PS3/360 why would you then make a thread and ask a question that seemingly you already know the answer to andno one can sway?I haven't made up my mind. I was just posing a question, that's the point and why is aid people are ***** because you are assuming i've made up my mind when why would i be asking the question? I wasn't bashing either system and that wasn't my intent at all here. I dont know which will be better in the long run. All I was asking was what would things be like if more developers were focusing on the ps3 architecture and if the 360 holds it back in that regard. I was just posing a question and hoping for intelligent debate here instead of the proverbial fanboy responses of people being offended like i was bashing the 360 when that's not what i was doing. how about answering the question instead of turning this into a he said/she said you are bashing whatever stupidity? I gave my opinion and it's just an opinion.
My opinion is that the ps3 is more forward thinking but isn't be fully utlized. To the average gamer and in todays real world it doesn't make a huge difference. most people aren't going to see the difference when it comes to games. The 360 is perfectly capable of pushing graphics and can actually render things that look better considering todays technology and the way things are developed. But from a design perspective the ps3 is capable of more.
Log in to comment