Squilliam said:
ChronotriggerJM said:
From what I've been told, Huxley wasn't even a technical "first person shooter", I've heard it was something entirely different. If that's true, why are we comparing FPS matches with MMO's? Simple 200 men battles vs 256 is quite similar really. I don't think I would notice much difference between the two.
Sure, I can disprove that. How long did it take Epic to make Unreal Tourney 3 on the PS3? From all acounts they said it was a much better performing game compared to Gears of War, and I'm sure it costed them a miniscule amount of money as well. You can nit-pick all you want from different developers, but what they achieve still stands true. The PS3 has supported higher polygon counts, has supported the furthest draw distances, the most effects on screen, locked framerates, the highest player counts, hell... just name it. I can't pull these out of nowhere, the accomplishments list on the PS3 is higher than that of the 360. By an easy hands down I might add.
Polygon counts, Draw distance and most effects are mainly a function of GPU performance, not CPU. The Xbox360 has an edge here as most people agree. Framerates - You mean the 26 FPS average MGSIV gets? Thats not locked by any definition.
I'm just saying, should Epic put the resources in, they COULD definitely out-do KZ2 on a technical scale, however, I think it would be much easier for them to do on PS3 hardware as opposed to 360 hardware. If so many other developers could out-do anything seen on the 360 with the PS3, Epic of all companies could really work it to the tooth. Ok - So if KZ2 is utilizing 1/2 of the PS3 processor as we've seen posted by MikeB and the PS3 CPU is twice the capacity of the Xbox360 CPU and I think you said its easier to use 100% of the Xbox360 CPU than the Cell do you get where im heading? Because its all theoretical bullshit and it doesn't mean anything. I would pick that ID - Valve - Epic - Infinity Ward (Notice they are all PC developers? Say ty to Microsoft for that) Could do Killzone 2 on the Xbox360 if given the same budget and time. They wouldn't because they have better things to do, but they could) Anyway nothing between the CPU/GPU/Memory/Development architecture anyway, but ya Hard drives help.
|
|
Oh I'm not saying all of that stuff is in one game mind you :p I'm just saying, even with the 360's "superior" GPU, PS3 exlusives HAVE had higher poly counts, they DO have better character models, they DO hit a locked 60 fps (not saying the 360 doens't, just saying the PS3 does too), they DO process more effects on screen, and they DO have further draw distances. If the 360's GPU is accepted as better, what the hell is taking them so long to get a better looking game than a PS3 exclusive?
I'm actually not following your 3rd response very well. If GORILLA GAMES of all companies, can put out something that performs better than EPIC studio's, there's an obvious problem, and not to sound like a huge fanboy, but I can't avoid it here, the problem is probably the 360 :/ Epic could run circles around what they're capable of on the 360 if they were an exclusive studio. It's universally accepted that theres more "room to play" so to speak with the PS3. Because the 360's so easy to develop for, there will obviously be less hidden space to explore.
