CGI-Quality said:
How can one side argue for a better "technical" experience if the experience is of a lower resolution than it's counterpart on the competing system? Take GTA IV as an example. There were individual areas where the PS3 was ahead, but in the total package, it was considered the inferior version of the two because it had a lower resolution in addition to other drawbacks. |
There's more to this than resolution. I'd argue in GTA 4's case they lowered the res cause anti-aliasing was disabled by the higher percision HDR implemented and they employed a screen filter to make up for the aliasing, and the screen filter needed the extra ram (That's my guess anyways). I'd rather take the lower resolution, which will probably be barely noticeable on my T.V. and have better lighting, and in some cases better textures (If those screens are the final build), than have the higher resolution with less effects. Another example; let's say for example Killzone 2 was multiplatform; the 360 version runs at a higher resolution, but the deferred renderer didn't make the port over and something else was implemented and all the Helghast lost their lit up eyes, would you rather have the higher res and lose the deferred renderer?
