EdGuila said:
Squilliam said:
EdGuila said:
That is based on processing only. If you take a look at PS3 as a system vs 360.
You forgot that fact that the PS3 includes a Bluray player (Does it make games run faster?!!?), WiFi (This relates to what exactly?), rechargble-sixaxis-rumble controller(vs rumble only) (Ditto), makes 1/3 the noise, free online which has %80 of the features Live has (Still doesn't make the games run better on the PS3), no over priced propritary accessories (Still doesn't do anything for the games) and the ability for PS3 gamers to play %80 of the games 360 gamers do and then play a further %18 that they don't get:Gears, Viva Pinata, Mass Effect, BioShock etc on their PCs(same cannot be said for 360 owners and MGS4, Uncharted DF, Rachet and Clank, GT5 not avalible for PC) This isn't a comparison about what you get in a bundle or how much you like Blu ray vs DVD, this is a game architecture comparison.
|
|
The title is PS3<360. Meaning everything about the PS3 is inferior than the 360. You are just comparing processing. I alluded to this in the first line of my post.
"That is based on processing only. If you take a look at PS3 as a system vs 360."
There should be an asterik in the title (*processing power only, not entire system vs entire system like the title says)
|
A car is more than its engine and a game console is more than its processor. I was talking about the whole architecture - Ram, Software development tools, CPU - and asking, which package is better?
We all know about the Cell, but whats not often considered is the whole package and how well it performs at its primary task - running cool games.
