Mazty said:
selnor said:
Mazty said:
selnor said:
Dont be fickle. In no way EVER will I listen to any solo Sony Dev/ M$ Dev over John Carmack. He has been at the forefront of graphics technology for over 15 years. Not the last 5 years. Of course he knows about the SPU's. Thats why his comment about splitting off jobs is made. Thats a direct reference to the badly designed SPU's system. Sorry, I know you look at GFLOPS and say that does this much and that does that much. It doesn't work like that. It all depends on what the game is asking. We already know that 360's CPU is much better for certain jobs and have known since 2006. I have read many articles about the 2 systems from mutual ground experts. ( Not Sony or M$ companies ) And all say in the end the result is both consoles will churn out about the same. Each have strengths. The main reason we have seen PS3 tak some graphics lead after KZ2 was the massive amount of Single player inhouse games designed. Every game on 360 bar 1 which looks great has been designed for split screen campaign ( or 4 player splitscreen ). ME is the only singleplayer game with effort. That is changing with Alan Wake ( god that looks amazing ) and Campaign of Splinter Cell ( although it does have a seperate campaign for splitscreen ). Engines have to change for splitscreen. |
Badly designed system? Last I checked a CPU that could render is nothing shy of amazing. As for what the game is asking...they all ask for the same damn thing - computational power and the Cell is better at that then the 360s CPU. The main strength of the 360 is that it's easy to program for and games can be easily ported over to the PS3 due to the PPE architecture. You are only kidding yourself if you think iD will put as much time into the Cell programming for Rage as Naughty Dog did for Uncharted 2.
And U2 is considered the graphics leader of consoles, so quit the fanboy waves of denial. Any engine which does splitscreen is also going to be graphically weaker than one which doesn't, unless graphics are cut down for split screen.
|
No games dont all ask for the same type of computational power. You should do some research. And no, several sources have called Sony and their first parties bluff on Cell being more powerful in a gaming environment. John Carmack is just the most respected Graphics Nerd out there. He speaks at GDC on Nvidia presentations and the like more than any other dev. I wonder why?
Raz from this very website has seen Rage running on consoles physically with his own eyes. If he says it beats other console games already out, then I trust him. So basically Carmack just got more out of the PS3 by putting less time into Cell Programming according to you. Oh and loads of reviewers are saying ME2 is either one of the best looking games this gen or saying it is, or that it's unsurpassed. So yeah, me saying ME2 is the best console game this gen for graphics no longer looks or sounds stupid. LOL. You can keep looking silly if you like.
|
Mate if you didn't read your own post, the PS3 according to Carmack is more powerful than the 360. This clearly isn't because of the GPU so then why is it more powerful?
And bull saying that ME2 is the best looking game this generation. As I've said, it runs perfectly on the 8800GT, so please, how can such a good game graphically run on such an old GPU so well? And in no way has a single ME2 screenshot beaten Uncharted 2 graphics if you bother to look at the textures, lighting and post processing effects - ME2 doesn't even have field of depth. But you have yet to show why the screenshots I provided (from the video you linked no less) are incorrect in my observations. You're the one saying i'm looking silly, yet the benchmarks are saying you are worshipping a game which runs at 60fps on a 4 year old GPU. Please explain that one as you flat-out believe not a single console game surpasses the graphics seen in Call of Juarez, a 4 year old game. 
|
Forget your stupid PC graphics card. Uncharted 2 would know doubt run on an older PC graphcis card if it was a PC game.
It also depends on the game engine and how it's been designeed to work with Hardware. We know UE3 is very efficient. Probably the most efficient Engine whilst using resources extremely well. Thats why it still looks amazing now. So, you haven't played ME2, yet loads of peple that have think it looks amzing, best of gen or there with the top runners.
Also saying what you said about Call Of Juarez was rediculous. You and I both know it doesnt work like that. If you base good graphics by waht PC graphics card you need, then you have alot to learn. As for my post. No I didnt say Carmack said PS3 was more powerful. I used PS3 as an example. Because Rage is said to be better than anyhthing currently on PS3. Carmack actually said in Raw processing power of CPU PS3 and 360 are virtually the same. It's the RSX is a bit slower than GPU on 360. I know you'll spin that somehow. But for him to say that midway through 2009 isnt some wierd comment. PS3 has been around for the last 3 years to buy. So they have probably had dev kits for PS3 for over 4 years.
