| almcchesney said: hey richardhutnik pulling a multiplat is like grabbing a game on windows 95 and trying to play it on windows xp and complaining its inferior because of bugs due to compatibility issues, if a multiplat where to be re-written for both consoles and "optimized" i have no doubts which one would take the cake, and OP thats a good article not too much new though, recently i did a research paper for my college course over the cell broadband architecture and since 2007 all the articles said that it would be faster and more efficient than any processor out there, (its actually being utilized in the worlds second fastest computer in the world). but the thing is getting the talent to utilize it. |
So, this means that if a game is on the PC also, then the PC version would look the same as console versions?
Anyhow, we are talking about anti-aliasing here. If there is some technique that will somehow make the PS3 anti-aliasing look better than the 360, it should be used. But, developers haven't, because these techniques haven't gotten out. There is no excuse to say, "Well all games developed across platforms look the same" because the PC versions usually look superior. The only thing you can use to accurately measure how normal game development works, is to go multi-platform. It is in the practical environment of this that you see what game libraries are like.
So, what I am saying is that it isn't a simple "slam dunk" to say the PS3 is clearly superior by a wide margin than the 360 (aka a "beast") if the games aren't showing it, and the information isn't getting out. And yes, the PS3 and Cell do have awesome tricks in them. But they need to get utilized to matter. So, it is good to end up writing about such, such as here.
