By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ultibankai on 13 August 2009
Edit Thread
Squilliam said:
Ultibankai said:
By they way, do not base how good this game looks on pre-released screen shots. As stated by Squilliam some time ago, those are always doctored in some way. Also, the PS3 is only having frame rate problems, not texture resolution problems like the 360. Therefore, both consoles are dragging their feet in some way.

PS: Regardless of how good you "think" this game looks, you cannot prove they are using superior programming techniques in comparison to Sony's 1st party developers. Stop using your opinion as fact, this is another problem you have. Just because you "think" this is a "Graphics God of a Game" doesn't make it so. Let the experts decide when it is released.

This really is more a next generation engine in that neither the Xbox 360 nor PS3 have everything this engine needs to perform at its peak. The Xbox 360 has the ability to render more complicated shaders than the PS3 and do it more efficiently at that and the PS3 has the media streaming advantage between the HDD and Optical drive to really do justice to the requirements of the streaming required of the engine. If any game justified an Xbox 360 GPU + PS3 CPU and system architecture (HDD + BR) along with a Microsoft programming architecture its probably this game.

Oh and yeah, of course they picked the best possible screenshot example to show and thats likely the PC running dual GTX 280s with processing applied afterwards. It wouldn't surprise me if they rendered the shots above at 10,000 by 6,000 pixels and down sampled it at minimum.

That got me thinking of how awesome a PS360 would be! LOL!  And by the way, doesn't the PS3's CPU allow for more complicated Physics and Lighting apps in game?  And doesn't the 360's (10 megabyte?) frame buffer have something to do with the frame rate advantage as well?