MikeB said:
crumas2 said:
MikeB said:
Legend11 said:
Proving to be much more powerful? You mean with the multiplatform games with the majority giving the 360 the edge? If the PS3 was really a lot more powerful it would show even if games aren't developed for it first.
|
The 360 provides more tradional like technology, the later more demanding games are about on par. Early Atari ST to Amiga games were also slightly subpar, later games were far superior. Judge the PS3 based on current exlcusives like Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction and Gran Turismo Prologue (1080p) but take into account my sig below. Soon we will have Metal Gear Solid 4 (1080p), people will already know which platform is far more powerful this year, faster than was the case for the Amiga. |
I have to wonder who those people are that will know (or care) that the PS3 is "more powerful". I know that it theoretically has more power, but I can't imagine the average potential console buyer looking at one of the rare 1080p games on the PS3 and a 720p game on the 360 (that has been hardware scaled to 1080i or 1080p) and saying "Oh, my god! Look how crappy that 720p-upscaled game on the 360 looks compared to that 1080p game on the PS3! I HAVE to have a PS3!" For you and me there might be some noticible difference when comparing the two on screens that are side-by-side, but I'm playing Mass Effect right now, and the game is absolutely stunning in graphics, sound, voice acting, plot, etc. I can't see any game on the PS3 in the next 6-12 months "blowing it out of the water", so to speak. The PS3 hardware may be more powerful on paper, but it isn't a next-gen leap over the 360, as some would like to believe. I just don't think comparing the games on the 360 to the games on the PS3 are a slam dunk for choosing a PS3. |
Reviewers will know. The gap between 640 lines (Halo 3) and Metal Gear Solid 4 (1080 lines) is quite big. Mass Effect rendering resolution is 720p, which is just fine (IMO 720p at 30 FPS should be minimal this generation, at least for 360 or PS3, if this cannot be achieved IMO sacrifices need to be made or on the PS3 game engines need to be adapted further to suit the technology). However the game has nasty texture pop-ups and suffers from framerate issues. Metal Gear Solid 4 being far more complex and rendering 1080 lines in solid 60 FPS (or 30 FPS in hectic scenes) will be quite apparent (or currenly Gran Turismo 5 Prologue in 60 FPS during gameplay or solid 30 FPS in replays), even to ordinary consumers with 1080p sets. |
I understand what you're saying, Mike, and I agree that some reviewers will put some focus on technical specs of a game, but in the end it comes down to "how much does the reviewer like the game". Remember, Bioshock got the rare 10-out-of-10 rating in Game Informer. Mass Effect received a 9.75-out-of-10 rating. Halo 3 received a 9.75-out-of-10 rating.
A LOT of potential customers read that magazine.
So... do you believe that in the future Game Informer will refuse to ever give high scores to 360 games because they run at hardware-scaled 640p or 720p instead of native-1080p, or because the frame-rate isn't as high as the PS3's, etc.? I would say the reviewer-focuses-on-raw-specs-instead-of-overall-experience theory is dead, wouldn't you? 
As far as consumers noticing, I would say it's a red herring. I'm playing Mass Effect and it looks and sounds beautiful to me. Yeah, every once in a while the movement has a slight "skip" in the movement. I'm a video-phile and an engineer by trade, so it's not like I don't pay attention to these things. The question is not "how much more potential horsepower is under the PS3 hood?" The question is "do PS3 games give the customer a significantly enhanced experience to sway customer choice?" At this point, the Blu-ray player and the emergence of long awaited games such as GT5 and MGS4 may be the driving factors, not "oh, wow! Look at the pores in Snake's skin!!". 
