Yawn... Another multiplat with lower resolution on PS3 -> Bioshock.

[Mendicate Bias]

Reasonable said:

Mendicate Bias said:

Reasonable said:

Yawn... another Squilliam 'have a go' thread... why not explain why Halo 3, a huge big budget exclusive built from the ground up for 360 couldn't manage 720p instead?

 

The budget was around $30 million although it's substantialy higher if you include advertising, but that money doesn't go into game development.

If you ever played the first Halo you would know the horrible framerate issues the game could have and since then Bungie has made it one of their priorities to keep the framerate locked and steady. Having played 4 player co-op and large 16 player matches I have never experienced any framerate issues whatsoever. I'm sure bungie deemed it appropriate to lower the resolution slightly in order to keep the framerate steady.

The real question is why the PS3 the widley touted stronger console cant match the specs of its weaker counter-part. Despite your name you sure do seem to show a PS3 bias...

 

I have never shown any PS3 bias (if I was going to be biased it would be to PC gaming, particularly for FPS)

Second, anyone with a degree of wit would realise I was pointing out that 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'...  many games on both consoles have made comprimises to get decent performance, so there's no point trying to score points on one over the other... unless you're a fanboy that is with real bias.

 

I agree however when one groups main argument is that console X is better than cosole Y because its significantly more powerful but then constantly get proven wrong then they deserve to be called out for it. If the PS3 was significantly more powerful than the 360 then it would never have to make comprimises to get decent performance. Please tell me where in my arguments I have made a fanboy statement.