Bitmap Frogs said:
Ragestash said:
Squilliam said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
So, what he's really saying is that it's easier to make games on the 360, it just has a whole mess of shortcommings and encourages developers to release sub-par versions of their games? Really, don't tell me that the 360 is the better machine, Mr. Carmack, while telling me at the same time that your games will not be superior on that machine. |
Textures are just one aspect, you have lighting - shaders - AA - Aniso filtering - frame rates - resolution - shadows.
A clear advantage on any one of those is possible for the Xbox360, which would certainly make the texture resolution issue moot at least. Many multiplatform games show a clear advantage for some of these different aspects favouring the Xbox360.
|
IGN.com on GTA4:
"For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud."
And that's a game coded for 360. You can't do anything close to say Uncharted on 360 at all.
|
You forgot to mention ps3's GTA4 runs at subHD (640 lines, I believe) while the 360 version is rendered at 720 lines. If you don't like your games mudded and blurred by upscaling, there's only one choice T_T
|
And yet, it's amazing how many people think Halo 3 looks good. Or COD4. Or Virtua Fighter. Or any of dozens of other "HD" games that don't run at native HD resolutions.
