Alright i hear a lot of people say the PS3 will just look, or perform a tiny bit better than 360 games, then i also hear things like Uncharted is just the start.
Can i get a reasonable explenation as to how much better looking and technical wise PS3 games will get? Or is all of what Sony said a bunch of BS (things like characters wont fall the same way, and all that 4-d stuff).
RyanShazam
Most of Sony's proclaimed advantage is a result of Blu-Ray and Cell. Blu-Ray is a more future technology what with MS being very good at software, ergo, compression technology, but we're starting to see the signs of it become more viable, what with games like LO, MGS, Uncharted and R&C taking up more space than a traditional DVD disc can handle and multi-discs cannot work for all games since the Xbox 360 has not guaranteed hard drive to install stuff to.
The Cell is a massive advantage because it is much more powerful than the MS processor unit. The main issue is that it is vastly different than MS' unit since it requires the dev to take advantage of its massive parallel processing abilities which can only be done on a game which is built from the ground up on the PS3. That simply isn't being taken advantage of because, if a game is built from the ground up on the PS3 and untilises the cell fully, it would simply be too hard to port over the Xbox 360 and maintain the standards of quality, so devs are just using the Cell processor to the same capability as they can expect from the Xbox 360's one.
In this generation, exclusives have been the clincher. Most games on both consoles are multiplatforms but, at the end of the day, they are designed to be equal on both systems. Exclusives, built from the ground up for a system, are what define and raise the standards expected of games on that platform. Everytime an exclusive arrives on a platform and raises the bar, multiplatoform games have jumped up to meet that standard. The reason the Xbox 360 was beating PS3 graphics for a while is because they have churned out a tonne of good exclusive games that have pushed this limit on the Xbox 360 in terms of what it can do and the third party games have followed suit. The PS3, owing to coming out a year later, what at a suitable disadvantage since it had not third party games that really pushed the limits above the Xbox 360 so the mutliplatform developers had no reason to make good ports since there was no good game on the system that they needed to compete with, hence the lack of good PS3 ports for a while after launch. Unfortunately, technological development comes less and less as we move further into a life-cycle of a console (with the exception of a few major bounds a-la Fable 2) which is why the PS3 is catching up, since it has the aforementioned technological advantages making its lifecycle longer than that of the Xbox 360, meaning technological advances in the games produced in it are still coming out at a good rate.
This kind of interpretation has lead to the school of thought that "Xbox 360 = Now, PS3 = Future"
I prefer to think of it as a trade-off. As any good company does when differentiating its product from the competition, MS made a trad-off. They traded away putting in highly advanced technology into their system for an early release date which enabled them to grab a lot of exclusive titles and push their advancement into their lifecycle early so that the begin to peak just as the PS3 is in infancy. I imagine, if this tactic had worked according to plan and they had killed the PS3 early on, that tactic would have paid off, but the PS3 has lasted a lot longer than MS would have liked and their trade-off isn't very good in the long-term, hence why they are losing ground. The fact is, with the Studio support they had, they didn't think Blu-Ray would win. The fact that it did has made sure that the PS3 will not die out which is a major wrench in their plans.
Log in to comment