| NightAntilli said: If we look at the performance of Call of Duty 4 on both systems, and also look at the performance of World at War on both systems, the X360 has less framedrops and framerate issues than the PS3. And now you are gonna tell me that the X360 is being maxed out and the PS3 is not? -______________- And oh, before anyone starts saying I have no proof for those framerate stuff... http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-4-engine-analysis http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-world-at-war-engine-analysis |
As I pointed out, using CoD4 as an exmaple, maxed out is more about the engine (or code) and how well (or not) its optimized and suits the console. Maxed out is meaningless the way its normally bandied about. Using CoD4 engine I could max out (given access to the level editor) both consoles easily.
I have to say your comparison is also flawed and not the way to go - its factual but tells us more about the relative coding skills (very good in both cases I'd argue) of IW and the relative suitability of their engine for each console. Clearly, I would presume given IW roots in PC coding and engines, the engine slightly favours the 360 and clearly IW skills at that point would slightly favour the 360. As you state the 360 version is slightly superior to the PS3 for framerate, etc. (in fact most third partiy titles, particularly those from developers with strong PC roots) tend to and will continue to tend to run slightly (emphasis on slightly) better on 360. I'm playing Red Faction on PS3 and it looks great, but I'd bet that the 360 version has slightly better AA and framerate (again emphasis on slightly).
What I find funny about all these arguements is that you could max out both consoles even with a game with graphics quality of a PS2 title if you wanted to.
I wish people would realize that consoles have an theoritical upper limit and its always in fairly easy reach - the challenge is writing very well optimized code that, ideally, has been designed specifically for the architecture of each console (which is why devs didn't and too an extent still don't like how different the archtectures of the 2 HD consoles are). That's why almost always the absolute best looking titles are exclusive and/or based on console specific engines.
I'd argue that the most graphically impressive titles to date have slightly edged to the PS3 (I'm thinking Uncharted and Killzone 2 mainly here and Uncharted 2) but I believe that's more due to each having been built from the ground up, at serious expense, for the console. The best looking 360 title I've played is Gears 2, but I noticed it had some slight issues with texture pop-in, etc down to the fact that while fantastically optimized for 360 it was nonetheless built on a non-specific engine. I expect titles like Forza 3, etc. to show 360 in a fantastic light, and a lot of that will be down to the engine being so specific to the console, plus well optimized.
Funnily enough, overall for the traditional home of graphical posturing (FPS and TPS) the PS3 has more titles on custom engines to the console than 360 (so far as I am aware, as due to nature of 360 many developers are clearly tempted to go middleware on the engine with U3 or similar engine). Of course the 360 architecture lends itself to this (while the PS3 does not) so that choice makes perfect sense.
In the end both are really powerful consoles, I'd argue probably about even graphically when all is said and done, with the PS3 having a moderate (and probably mostly unexploited) advantage in potentially processing power with the 360 having (for some developers) an advantage in architecute familiarty and ease of coding.
Hopefully soon we'll see what the latest, console friendly tech from ID and Crytek looks like on the Hd consoles - that should be interesting.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
