| Dno said: EPIC fail. burnout, GTA4, COD4 to name a few. |
GTA 4? That's the game in lower resolution on the PS3, right? It's HD on the 360, but not HD on the PS3.
CoD 4 looks very similar on both systems. I didn't notice much of a difference myself, except that they both looked like shit compared to the PC version. I don't know about Burnout, but if you look at Madden 08 it's very obvious that the 360 version looks and plays better. Same with
I'm not a dev, not for high end games anyhow, but I do understand the architecture of the Cell (I developed a pipelined processor while earning my computer science degree) and I understand game engines (developed one of those, too). You can find plenty of devs who will say, "the PS3 is more powerful" or "the 360 is more powerful." The only real area of contention is the Cell and Xenon, as its accepted (and simply a fact) that the 360 has more fill rate and they have about the same amount of memory (small advantage to the 360 here).
And Cell vs Xenon is not a simple discussion because they cannot be directly compared. The ultimate answer is that the Cell is very fast for some things, but not others, whereas the Xenon is quite fast for most things. Again, compared to modern processors they're both fairly slow, but not nearly as slow as the GPUs in each of those systems.
They're both video game toys, sure. Neither is a super powerful system -- we're already 3 years into the "Next generation" of games, and already PCs can mop the floor with either of the systems handily and they're struggling to live up to the promise of HD gaming. But, whatever, take offense that I suggested the 360 toy is about equivalent with the PS3 toy, except for some minor differences.
