MikeB said:
Squilliam said:
Ok... I guess this is good news for about PS3 3% of the population who A. Cares and B. Doesn't already whore the graphics on the PC. |
. For a game like Super Stardust HD the onscreen action can get so fast 60 FPS is of benefit, hence it will render 120 pictures per second in stereoscopic 3D (60 pictures per eye).
|
Most XBox 360 vocals seem to care, often comparing micro differences of some multi-platform games which sometimes aren't enough PS3 optimised.
Games of course which aren't PS3 optimised unless the PS3 version outperforms the Xbox 360 version. Game developers however contest this point of view quite strongly.
It may be hard to understand for some, but the PS3 has technical advantages over the PC (and vice versa), such as the Cell is able to outperform the best consumer PC quad core CPUs out there with proper optimisation.
At tasks which the PC CPU has never been specialised to perform. The GPU is specialised to perform with these tasks. Most of what the Cell does the PC GPU already does significantly better so saying that the Cell CPU performs these tasks better than the PC CPU is a red herring.
Blu-Ray disc capacity allows for more varierty of assets (mainly textures and audio). Blu-Ray is yet to become standard for PC gaming (and publishers don't want to spread their games onto too many DVDs).
PC games use as much space as they need. They can use 15+ GB on the HDD, they would use more if they needed to. However they don't need as much space because PC games tend to use dynamic lighting and they don't prebake anything and therefore repeat textures depending on lighting nor do they need to repeat any data on the HDD to speed loading.
All PS3s out there have a Cell and Blu-Ray and that allows for much deeper optimisations in course of time. Ironically the most popular PC games are actually some of the least technically demanding titles on the PC.
Optimisation, yes. Raw performance no. Ironically the most popular PS3 titles are also the least demanding given that they also appear on multiple platforms and apparantly don't take advantage of the hardware.
Top PC GPUs are able to render higher framerates in higher resolutions, but to truly appreciate going from 720p to for example 1080p you'll need a big HDTV.monitor and if good upscaling is applied the difference is even smaller (like on Toshiba Cell powered HDTV). The irony is that most PC gamers I know own monitors much smaller than my HDTV!
Not really... Its easy to spot twice the pixels from 50cm away. Also given the distance most PC gamers have a greater need for higher resolution images as the displays still take up a larger proportion of their vision as they are so close.
With regard to framerates a locked 30 FPS experience is perfectly smooth for most types of games (due to human perception delay) especially in combination with motion blur for faster paced scenes.
Thats generally inadequate for a mouse interface outside of an RTS game or perhaps RPG. 60FPS is just smoother in general and ideal when possible.
PC gaming also offers a very different relatively solistic kind of experience, a PS3 is a better fit for most home cinema setups. Sitting on the couch with friends playing with multiple wireless DS3 controllers is very different compared to someone sitting behind a desk with mouse/keyboard, usually playing all by himself. So comparing pretty apples with pretty oranges, still makes this comparing apples and oranges.
PS3 playing is also very soloistic given the fact that Sony neglects the local multiplayer option in most of their titles. Only the Wii is truly an experience which can usually be shared, especially when considering the popular titles.
PC gaming is also taking the back seat this generation, a lot more money, time and effort is being invested in PS3 exclusives than in PC exclusives and that shows!
Sony spends a lot of money, they also lose a lot of money and I get it. You still cannot best the overall fidelity of the PC and you cannot best the options PC gaming gives you.
