Rainbird said:
disolitude said:
Kyros said:
PS3's version of Bioshock looks better because it has had an extra year of development.......
True but as ocnkng said, if developers like 2K and ID etc. are starting to be able to actually use more detailed textures than fit on a DVD every developer will soon be able to do that. And in this case the available storage space will be a factor in how games look. And here the PS3 has an advantage. I don't think that the advantage is huge because you can get an awful lot of textures on a DVD but at least some crow eating would be in order for the BluRay will not help gaming crowd. Because they didn't add YET.
|
Lets say this is correct...you realize that people with STDV will not see any texture difference and people playing with 720p or higher may see it only if their TV is over 42 inches in size.
Besides there is only so many textures ps3 can process at "higher res" before things start to chug since the memory is limited and graphics processor is limited as well. I don't see much coming of this new "wow bluray has more room...lets magnify the textures" developer discovery...
|
Of course you can't see if the textures are that much higher res on a SDTV, but since IGN said that there was a notable difference, shouldn't we assume that it does look better since the majority of people developing/trying the game agree that it looks better?
"The water effects look much slicker, as do many of the environments as they are slowly submerged in water"
So even though the PS3 can "only proces so many textures at higher res before things start to chug" and the game still looks better on the PS3, doesn't that just mean that MS put too much RAM in the 360, since they clearly have no use for it? (I know RAM can be used for other things obviosly, but I give stupid answers to stupid statements).
|
Unreal Tournament 3 called...and its asking the PS3 bluray/cell processor the same question.
