Debunking the myth that the PS3 > Xbox360, The real work proves Xbox > PS3

[taxman]

Squilliam said:

Phendrana said:
Do you think the 360's year head start may have something to do with this? Games always get better as consoles progress through their life cycle. Just a thought. I really have no idea.

 

Games get better for several different reasons. *Just quickly*

Developers can learn to gain the most visual impact by expending resources where they count the most.

I.E If we sacrifice One unit of A and get two units of B we get a better looking game. The depth of field effect is a prime example - they sacfrifice far off detail for close in detail where people are paying closer attention.

They can also take advantage of better tools and techniques so that they can get the game out faster while giving them more time to tweak the little things.

I.E The engine is already 80% right for this game, they can spend 3000 man hours working on their streaming engine so they can get better texture effects.

But by now the games companies have had 3-4 years working with both Consoles so 85% of what if possible (Just roughly) on both consoles has been done already or will be done in games coming out in the next 6 months.

 

I guess that is where your argument fails....

As you say here, the quality of the finished product is based on the Man hours put into the engine. This means that as far as multiplatform titles are concerned, the performance of the engine is limited by the budget and it has nothing to do with the true performance capabilities of the systems.

Since it is harder to programme for the PS3 then it suffers more from this constraint and hence you can prove nothing with only comparing the two titles you selected...

Fact is that an engine that takes advantage 100% of the PS3 power is not yet available and there is no way of knowing how this would perform. No one knows yet, but if i had a guess I would say it is much more likely that the 360 is closer to the top if its capabilities than the PS3