pizzahut451 said:
Wow, you call that better running? Thats an overstatment. I thought you were talking about some serious diffrence and lacking performance on one ps3 version of the game. When you say it runns better it usually means less loading times, no freezes, glitches or bugs and no HDD problems. A few missing textures, or slightly un noticable graphical superiority doesnt mean it runs better. If you wanna see a true gap in console graphics compare KZ3 with any FPS out there, or GOW3 with any action adventure game outhere. An article also says MW2 put up better performance on Xbox 360, but we all know the matchmaking problems the xbox version had - that means PS3 version actually ''runs'' better - at least it did until hackers ruined it, but thats the not hardwares fault.
All in all, the article doesnt say it runs better on xbox, it says it looks better. And if you ask me, those diffrences are so god damn small you probably wont even notice them when you play the game. To use them to win in some graphics debate is dumb IMO. But correct me If I am wrong, but wasnt Xbox the lead console for developing Black Ops? If it is, than there is really no suprise it looks slightly better on Xbox, it has nothing to do with PS360 hardware, but with developers choice of choosing what will be the main console version and which one will be the port, which usually looks slightly inferior. Example, Burnout Paradise, PS3 was a lead platfor and thats why its version looked better. It has little to do with hardware capabilities and more with the development and porting of the game. But like i said, the diffrences on most multiplatforms are so small and un noticable its not relly worth arguing.
|
