By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thermal7 on 03 September 2007
Edit Thread
Game_boy said:
GranTurismo said:
In your post game boy you said that the PS3 has a low amount of Ram, when infact it has the same amount of Ram as the 360, the PS3 shares its Ram between the CPU/GPU. Plus most people know that the FPS are going to increase next year in the madden sports games, considering last years games on the 360 all ran at 30 FPS.

Sony and many other companies have already been able to bring the PS3 past the 360 in Graphics, Sony has made serveral sports games at 1080p and 60FPS, plus the guys behind GT have made their game run at the same specs.

Games like Killzone, RFOM and unreal have proven that the PS3 is can do just as much if not more then the 360.
Yes indeed, games have proven that the PS3 is not being used to its full potential. I do not dispute this; however I think Sony's choice of architecture makes it very difficult for everyone other than Sony to make great games. The PS3 should, for the money, have better than the 360 every time, not sometimes. And it is a low amount of RAM in the context of the price tag. You're basically saying the PS3 is used equally to the 360, and I think currently that's a best-case scenario, and I was trying to explain why. You can't bash me on fanboyism either because I don't like Microsoft and never buy their products if I can but have to admit they have a better console setup especially with the price factored in.

I don't think you can say that the PS3 should be better in most games because it has a higher price tag. It could be argued that things such as blu-ray, free online, etc. make it worth the greater cost. You can compare the value but you need to compare the complete package.

I totally agree with you on your comparison though. I think Sony are quite devious with their descriptions of the power of the PS3 (www.playb3ond.com) and the ease of development

It really seems to me that all Sony's descisions stem from the assumption that their dominance from the previous generation would just carry over. They chose an arcitecture with a lot of potential. If they were dominating this would pay off, as developers would have no choice but to work with it and those that mastered it could expect to make a lot of money. However, they are selling woefully so there isn't a huge incentive to spend a lot of time on the PS3 to get tap its treasure with so few potential buyers. Thus we are seeing games with framerate issues and inferior ports when compared to the 360.

I also think that whilst there are certain aspects of a console that are tuned toward initial ease of development or greater potential with effort, there are also such things as plain bad descisions. I don't think if a game is bad for the PS3 it can nessessarily be said "Well that's because it has so much potential but they didn't put in the time".