RAZurrection said:
I don't know PS3 has a couple of nice looking exclusives like KZ2 & Uncharted 2, everything else is strictly run of the mill, but these aren't going to help once Crysis 2 is out on both systems...so really, how can they support the inclusion of Cell & Blu-ray when other better looking games,, like Crysis 2 look and runs better on systems with neither?
Wow. I can't believe how off you are with this: "Capcom's Framework MT engine uses some very useful tricks in maintaining image quality. It runs at native 720p, and employs the use of full-on 4x multisampling anti-aliasing on Xbox 360, while using the 2x Quincunx technique on PS3. On a like-for-like basis, this means that the 360 has clearer visuals (2x QAA blurs every texture) but edge-smoothing is very similar." ... "However, things are slightly odd on the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5 in that the anti-aliasing can turn on and off again at any given point, seemingly when the engine seemingly isn't being stressed at all." .. "While the overall look of the game is very close on both machines, the Xbox 360 version wins out with the inclusion of a bit more bling for your money."
"As you might expect, the water is a key element of this particular stage and you'll note that the PS3 version of Resident Evil 5 is flatter and duller, with fewer reflections. The Xbox 360 version on the hand has full world reflections, making this stage in particular rather more attractive than its counterpart on the Sony platform. It's a similar compromise to that seen on the PS3 version of Fallout 3, where once again 360 has more detailed and realistic water reflections." ... Also evident is that the Xbox 360 version has more in the way of incidental particle effects and transparent alpha textures (i.e. smoke). For example, in the main video edit you saw how Chris Redfield takes down a speeding lorry that's hurtling towards him. On 360, there are friction-esque sparks and a proper exploding windscreen that you don't see on PS3. None of these make the Sony platform look that much inferior in the heat of the action, but it's a clear indication that Capcom still has some work to do on the Framework engine to bring its performance up to the 360 counterpart. ... "The major difference is that Xbox 360 runs with v-lock disengaged, while the PlayStation 3 code has absolutely no tearing whatsoever. However, similar to Grand Theft Auto IV - which operates in the same way - the Xbox 360 version has a tangible advantage here on two fronts. Firstly, it drops far fewer frames than the PS3 code, and secondly, the response from the controls is significantly crisper, particularly when the environments are chockfull of opponents. And again, similar to GTAIV, while the tearing is there, it's pretty much unnoticeable in gameplay (cut-scenes are another matter)."
Third party analysis found the 360 to have the more consistent framerate than the PS3 at the expense of tearing, while the PS3 had no tearing at the expense of the framerate. I don't know why you'd lie about that. But really if the 360 was supposed to "catch up" on effects, then someone better tell them to stop because apparently it's beyond what PS3 can do. Not bad since the PS3 was the lead platform.
I'd recommend you read "The Xbox 360 Uncloaked" by Dean Takahashi then as "not enough memory" was the biggest single item of feedback Microsoft received from developers about what to improve last gen.
Well I think this may come back to haunt you since "sandbox" games and mandatory install go hand in hand on PS3 and Crysis 2 and Rage are both sandbox...and while it may be true that the 360 doesn't have a standard harddrive, this doesn't change the fact you can buy a 360 without one and still get superior graphical performance in games where installs are mandatory on PS3.
I thought thats what it was. But I still don't get how that stops the PS3 from being the lowest denominator, he's not referring to the overall obviously because thats the PC.
My opinion on lowest denominator = System thats going to receive the most cut-backs for real-time performance
We in this case i'd choose to disagree, since I don't think it's a secret that most "HD" games this gen are built with the 360 in mind and very few with PS3 in mind, yet the 360 rarely ends up with the worst version despite that fact.
Well I think there's the issue right there, which is what i've been getting at. The TC could have made this topic in 2007 using Ratchet, Uncharted 1 and Heavenly Sword, but within a year you had 360 exclusives and cross platforms looking and performing better then those...and since it has neither Cell nor Blu-ray, how could they be provably beneficial for the PS3? So likewise, with multi-platform Crysis 2 on the horizon, certain to visualy and technically outdo any PS3 exclusive thus far announced or released, how is this different? |
Uncharted 1 is still consider a technical milestone, there are few if any games on the 360 OR the PS3 that match its excellence even to date, and that is with merely 1 year of ulitising the PS3 capability, developer got better and they learn how to utilise the system better (both the 360 and the PS3) as time went on, but for every step forward the 360 took, the PS3 is one step ahead in graphic.
Uncharted 2 is the undisputed graphic king. Crysis 2 is not live, we've been given a tech demo with no interaction, until the 360 can produce something as good as Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2, my point stand.
In otherword, I'm dealing with both technical potential of the system and what it can currently output. To both this point, the PS3 has been and still is ahead, until proven otherwise, it will remain ahead. There is no reason why this is hard to accept, the 360 uses older tech and came to the market one year earlier. Its not a fair fight.
