Rainbird said:
dahuman said:
Rainbird said:
dahuman said:
Rainbird said:
KBG29 said:
I do not get why people keep bringing up multiplatform games. If that is the area of concern then of course the Cell and Blu-ray was a waste of time. No multiplatform dev so far has had the balls to tell MS, we are making this game PS3 first and scaling back to you console. The PS3 always gets the shaft. I know that this is because of the sales, and it was the same way with the original Xbox vs the PS2. Last gen Xbox versions should have blown away PS2 versions, but all you got was better anitailiasing, and framerate.
Now as far as the PS3 versions being worse. That is very 2007. In the last two years, it has been to close to call. Most games look identical besides colors, with a pretty even split for games looking better on one platform over the other.
Going into the future, things should continue to get better for PS3 on this front. Sony knows that devs will not take the time to learn to program for the PS3, and they have been very generous in giving out all of there tricks. Gurillia, Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and Sony Santa Monica have all been completly open with 3rd parties. As the PS3 continues to sell, and Sony becomes profitable, they may even be able to lend dev power to certain studios to make true PS3 versions of there games. Stuff like Madden, and Call of Duty would be great with a true PS3 version that could be ported down to 360. However I don't see PS3 being fully taken advantage of until we have next gen consoles on the market, that all use HD formats for content. |
The area of concern is gaming on the PS3 as a whole, and a majority of the games released on it are multiplatform games. And even in many recent games, the PS3 version will be slightly worse than the 360 versions. DiRT 2, NFS:Shift, II-2 Sturmovik, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2 are just some of the recent games that have a slight edge on the 360.
It's not about balls to stand up to Microsoft, it's about resources, and making a great looking game requires less resources to do on the 360 than on the PS3. That's just reality.
|
actually, most of the games you have mentioned pretty much look the same outside of different style of AA. woudln't exactly call them having slight edge, was more dev choice, and people forgetting to turn super white and 0-255 color range on while using HDMI cables on the PS3 lol..... geniuses.
|
Not really, all of those games have more frametearing on the PS3 while most of them will also drop more frames on the PS3. Not necessarily a big difference, but it gives an edge to the 360 versions no less.
|
screen tearing is only really a problem on shitty TVs, which does remind me, would it kill them to just have vsync on? like wtf cell is so hard to work with that you can't limit the FPS to 60 or lower, now that, is lazy.
|
Well, that requires power. Some titles will drop v-sync to maintain framerate, others won't. The PS3 version of RE5 doesn't drop v-sync, and so has no screentearing, but has some shifty performance with the framerate taking a hit under heavy load. The 360 version does the opposite and thus has more frametearing, but maintains 30 FPS.
|
