| Reasonable said: Seems better than their usual analysis. I noticed tearing and issues in pretty much every video released for the title, so this isn't a surprise. I feel from what I've seen they pushed the content and detail further than they could optimize the engine. I also note that, with a cross-platform engine, the PS3 takes a slightly higher hit as the code doesn't leverage the more specific PS3 architecture vs the easier to leverage 360 architecture. It'll still play well enough, though. Reading reviews, I'm just glad that, a poor start aside, it seems to offer a better game than AC, which impressed me a lot in many ways, but also annoyed me with its glaring flaws and barely developed gameplay, which I felt left it resembling more the best tech demo ever than a finished game. |
You've got it wrong sorry.
The differences are very easy to explain and don't really result from a porting process at all, this game was lead on the PS3 in any case!
1. MSAA vs QAA is simply due to the 2x sample rate advantage and the extra memory bandwidth.
2. Loading times are simply due to the faster DVD-Rom on the Xbox 360 and the fact that the game isn't suited to HDD caching like with Uncharted 2 due to the fact that the player can move so quickly. If they tried a similar system it would lead to cache thrashing.
3. Tearing is due to the fact that the PS3 architecture has a more variable frame time due to the > number of cores and the Cell -> GPU programming model.
4. The lighting differences are due to the additional performance given by the Cell CPU for this task.
The game couldn't have been made exclusively for the PS3 and had these issues dropped out. If it was the same game then the same design decisions would lead you back to the same problems and the only difference is that you wouldn't have an Xbox 360 version to point out the flaws.
Tease.
