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

[Final-Fan]

Squilliam said:

ChronotriggerJM said:

Squilliam said:

ChronotriggerJM said:
The point he's trying to prove, and the fact's he's pulling from don't support the claim though -_-; The fact's he's using prove that it's easier to program for, and cheaper to program for... We already knew this. The only way you'll get to see what a system is really capable of is via exclusives. And it's almost universally accepted that PS3 exclusives push the "cutting" edge. I don't wait for the next 360 game to showcase what consoles of this gen can do graphically, I don't wait for the 360 to see how rediculous the player counts can get up to for a multi-player game, I don't wait for the 360 to do anything as far as technology is concerned >_> In my opinion it's not the console holding the deck of cards.

Because the 360 is easier to work with, it will be 100% utilized long before the PS3 is, and in my opinion it's still playing catch up.

Huxley was announced wayyy before MAG <-- Similar player numbers, did you ignore it? Oh... Its only special when its announced for the PS3.

Also could you disprove this " Epic - If given the motivation and budget/time of Gearbox could produce a game thats the equall or better technically as Killzone 2" Which is precisely why using exclusives can be a bad idea for comparison. (Remember they did Gears 2 in less than 2 years, where Gearbox could have been working on Killzone 2 for almost 5 years by the time its released.)

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.

(responses above, below original paragraphs)

I don't quite feel like jumping completely into this (yet) but there are a couple things I need to comment on. 

Firstly, it seems to me that there is a bit of a disconnect going on in Squilliam's recent response.  Ever since the OP and right up to this post, he has consistently held the position that hardware superiority should not be judged by tech specs but by observed performance as measured in games -- "because it's all theoretical bullshit". 

But wait!  "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."  Did Squilliam just brush aside the PS3's alleged superiority in various game-quality-enhancing techniques by saying that those things are done by the GPU and everyone knows that the 360's GPU is better so obviously the PS3's games can't be better at those things?  On the surface it looks like total hypocrisy, but I eagerly await Squilliam's perfectly logical explanation detailing how my conclusion is dead wrong. 

Secondly, please stop using Killzone 2 as an all-purpose bludgeon regarding PS3 development times, budget, etc.  Is Duke Nukem Forever representative of PC development times?  Does that game prove that the PS3 is actually much faster to develop for than the PC?  I think it's widely acknowledged that PS3 games do in fact take longer and cost more to develop than 360 games, but I don't think that KZ2 is a valid example of what is even remotely normal.