| ph4nt said: I'm going to post here what i did in another thread... I don't see the point in arguing about the Cell, or the power of PS3 in general. First of all, what's the point of having such a powerful and expensive CPU if it takes 3+ years for it to even begin to showing a slight increase in power over the 360? Killzone 2 and Resistance 2 look good, but nothing that can't be done on the 360, games look better than those two. I'm sure maybe in year 4 of PS3 games will start to look a little better, but the difference is going to be so marginal that the average person won't be able to tell the difference. Who cares if the PS3 can push a few more polygons ,textures, and lighting effects than 360? I can assure you that those minor improvements will not make a game better. Even if the graphics are slightly downgraded later on, I will still have the same exact experience on xbox that I will on PS3. |
The same thing can really be said about any console from the next generation, compared to this one, as well. The power leaps required for the average joe to notice the difference are so large that, by the time these consoles have reached their end-of-life, there still won't be a console that is signifigantly better *in appearance* to the end user. Even if it has 2-4x the number of processors, and 4x the memory, and runs games at 60fps at 1440p, the difference, to the average joe, will be limited at best.
The PS3 is more powerful than the 360, for certain, at least in the CPU dept (and not the GPU, without some serious PS3 engineering for SPU-assistance. The GPU's output is going to produce the visual results people love to discuss). The truth is that it doesn't matter all that much, in the end -- both console's GPUs are so similar as to be practically identical (although you could argue that the 360s is capable of doing some fancy stuff the PS3s is not... or that the SPUs can help push the PS3 past the 360.. with a lot of extra effort from the developers).
As I said before -- how a game looks on a particular console this gen, where the specs are so very similar (from a GPU perspective), is pretty much all on the developer, and which console they choose to focus on. I wouldn't doubt that, for the entire generation, the 360 will look on par, or better, than the PS3 for a huge number of cross-platform games, due to the fact that the 360 is easier to develop on. Because the PS3's horsepower can probably be pushed little further (with great effort, as I have said), I also wouldn't doubt that the exclusives on the PS3 will usually outshine those on the 360 -- because the developer is forced to work with more complicated, but in the end, more powerful, hardware.
In the end, the differences are not hardware related, really. They are economic, and dev cycle related, and always will be. Saying "look at these games on my PS3, compared to your games on your 360" is practically like comparing "look at World of Warcraft on my ATI video card, compared to your NVidia video card!" and then comparing another game where... oh, guess what, the situation is reversed -- due to developer focus on their shader work -- ATI cards were cheaper for one dev, or NVidia was cheaper for another, or dev X has issues with support personnel from company Y, yada yada yada.
Hasn't this been the end result of every single discussion on this topic?
