TheMarkness said:
Mazty said:
Lord Flashheart said:
Ok Jede, Ok. |
Quit with the name constant name calling; you're like a stoned kid obsessed with tin foil. Someone said ME2 was the best graphics ever seen on a console. I said this wasn't true because:
1i)It's graphics, from high res screenshots, highlight many technical short comings e.g. soft shadows, anti aliasing, low res textures in the surrounding, a reliance on bump mapping etc
ii) This is backed by the fact the game runs almost perfectly on an old GPU, the 8800GT
2)The 360 simply isn't as powerful as the PS3. Naughty Dog have said this, Guerilla Games, Sucker Punch Productions, Santa Monica Studio, and John Carmack.
3) It would be rare for a non-exclusive title to be the most graphically demanding game on a console due to the optimisation that goes into exclusives. It's cheaper and easier not to optimise.
I never have said the 360 isn't a good console, or that ME2 isn't a good game. You can choose to prefer ME2's graphical direction in comparison to Uncharted 2, but it isn't as technically demanding, which some how people reguard as flamebaiting.
|
Number two there makes it easy to spot a fanboy. John Carmack completely says the opposite to what your saying based on developement for Rage:
http://www.slashgamer.com/2009/07/31/rage-runs-faster-on-360-than-ps3/
http://www.edge-online.com/news/carmack-ps3-performance-lags-behind-360
http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21962
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=220530
It's been talked about time and time again by numerous developers that both systems have thier unique strengths and weaknesses when it comes to power. While the Cell CPU architecture based on how the seperate SPE's operate is capable of doing more compared to the Xbox CPU 3-core based architecture it all depends on if the developers design their engine/game to utilize that specific architecture. Power wise I would give the PS3 the advantage here only if properly coded for. (in this case John Carmack really puts them pretty close in performance).
GPU time and time again is always acredited to being more powerful on the Xbox 360 solely based on it's fast memory interface and unified shader architecture. Reading John Carmacks comments on development of his behemoth "Rage" easily points out the simply the Xbox 360 GPU is just fast; no if, ands, or buts about it. I like Carmack draw the same comparisons too that the RSX is almost identical to a shelf verison 7800GTX while the Xenos is based losely off of a X1900 Radeon with the addition of unified shaders, 10MB embedded DRAM, etc.
Number one and three kind of lump together. The graphics on Mass Effect 2 may have short comings but despite that it is a pretty impressive looking and scaled game none the less. Considering the Xenos is compariable the 8800GT feature set wise then it makes sense that it would run perfectly on that hardware. Pointing to number three why would it be rare for a non-exclusive title to be most graphically demanding on a console as you put it. If the Xbox 360 architecture is very close to a typical PC architecture (which it is) then coding a graphical demanding game for the Xbox 360 is easily feasible to multi-plat to the PC since they are very interchangable from a programming and design perspective.
Now non-exclusive games designed around two completely different pieces of architecture or platforms would make more sense in that argument (say PS3 / 360 multi-plat , not 360 / PC as in this case).
Naughty Dog, Guerilla Games are first party studios that get funded by Sony to develop. If they where independents I would value their opinion closer as I do ID and Carmack who is not constrained by who pays the bills. Give a studio 3-4 years of development time and a crazy budget as Naughty and Guerilla has had and I assure you we could see something similar in scale on the 360 (noting that it would be completely exclusive to 360 not a exclusive with PC release).
|
