Game reviews, how do ratings for different platforms compare?

[LordTheNightKnight]

MikeB said:
@ grimygunz

If you notice many reviewers have stated in thier reviews on some consoles reflect if the the game if "Truly next-gen" Which i feel is bull as readers only want to know if the game is any good or bad.

I both agree and disagree. For example releasing 480p games for the PS3 I would consider to be unacceptable, while IMO for the Nintendo Wii and PS2 it's not. Likewise having a game with NES style graphics on the Nintendo DS I don't consider to be acceptable, nomatter if it's an as good of a game as Super Mario 3 (and this while I'm much more forgiving with regard to handhelds).

 Actually, a 480p game on the PS3 wouldn't be that bad. The thing is that even though the Cell+RSX is more powerful than the Xenon+Xenos, the PS3 has only about 80% of the RAM of the 360. This is based on the fact that the PS3 has 512MB of RAM, which includes the System RAM, the Texture buffer, and the Frame buffer. The 360 has 512MB of RAM, which only includes the System RAM and Texture buffer. The Frame buffer is set aside in 10MB of RAM. However, that RAM is high speed EDRAM, which if the speed were balanced with size, would be about 96-128MB of RAM, or about 25% more RAM than the PS3 has.

 Hence the PS3 may have to shortchange the Frame buffer to have as much system and texture memory as a 360 game. Why is the Frame buffer important? It controls the fourth wall. Texture memory holds the graphics (textures, polygons, shading, mapping, lighting, etc.), but it can't "see" the fourth wall. The Frame buffer does. It controls framerate, depth (as in knowing which pixel in a line of sight to show), anti-aliasing, and everything else that the player is supposed to see, even if everything else is still in the memory.

 Now a higher resolution actually adds more work to the frame buffer, since many of its duties require it to actively scan every pixel. Anti-aliasing is an example. It looks at every pixel to see a jaggie, then blend it in. Yet another is seeing which textures are off screen, so the Texture buffer doesn't have to fully render what is unseen. This was used in Resident Evil 4, Twilight Princess, and Final Fantasy XII to achieve the high detail on the textures. However, that process also has to scan every pixel to see what is showing on the screen. That actually left too little room for anti-aliasing, and also made those games run at 30fps.

 Those games were just on 480p systems.* Imagine how much more work 720p and 1080p would need. This is why the 360 has an advantage. If the PS3 needs as much from the Frame buffer, the System memory or Texture buffer would have to be cut into.

 Howeve, if the screen resolution was just 480p, that would free up a lot of space on the system, as the System memory and Texture buffer would be relatively untouched.

 Then again, both Sony and Microsoft apparently require 720p minimum on their systems. Also it's likely developers will optimize the systems' RAM to run almost the same eventually, so this may become a non-issue soon, but for now, it is there.

 

 

 *Now before you bring up the Xbox, the Xbox used standard speed RAM. The Frame buffer and Texture buffer on the PS2 and GC are also high speed EDRAM, which means their memory was as large, or alsmost as large, as the Xbox's. The Xbox's main advantage was flexibility in its memory, but in an identical situation, it would likely have to sacrifice anti-aliasing and 60fps.