By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
zeldaring on 27 July 2024
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:
zeldaring said:

According to DF, Gears of War 3 and halo 4 were up there with the most visually demanding games for ps3.  Honestly to me forza horizon was the most beautiful game that gen very subjective.

Halo 4 is an interesting case of... Style over substance.
Geometrically many things in Halo 4 were scaled back compared to Halo 3, they also dropped the tessellated water and the double buffer... And brought forward the texture and mesh streaming from Reach.

It very much used a baked lighting pipeline... But because of those cutbacks they were able to implement subsurface scattering for some impressive skin shading.. This is actually a form of Ray Tracing ironically enough.

But it wasn't anything the Playstation 3 couldn't do.

Gears was just a showcase for Unreal Engine 3.5, to me it wasn't anything special, it was a good looking game no doubt for the era.

zeldaring said:

As for real world performance I still disagree  you can't have a whole generation of games running better on 360 and even when they are lead on ps3 they are On par, real world goes to 360 but thanks for your thoughts.

Playstation 3 offered higher performance, it was just difficult to achieve maximum throughput.

The games performed better on the console that was easier to develop for. It's not rocket science.

It's actually the same issue the Xbox Series X faces... Due to it's split memory pool speeds, it's actually a harder console to develop for verses the Playstation 5 (Ignoring the Xbox's API issues as well).
Thus the 20% performance advantage ends up being irrelevant.

Like i said this is very subjective when comparing 2 different engines with 2 different goals. In  your opinion naughty dogs games are more techically demanding then anything on 360 but it's really impossible to confirm this. I would say GTAV is more demanding then anything on those consoles of course it doesn't have the looks. also FORZA horzion looks stunning and makes gt5 look like crap. 

 It also not rocket science  that if it is  more powerful in real world performance it would eventually be able to show in some games, like it was a long gen where are these multiplaform games that actually take advantage of the power and prove it, not many big gap in thousands of games. so basically we are stuck with uncharted 3 being the show case and the reason for ps3 being more powerful in your opinion which is subjective and also can be based on the skill of the devloper. in  the end it's more powerful on paper but no developer could actually take advanatge in real world perfomance.

so i was using google to read about this subject more and this is the best answer 

In addition, these debates are always semantically impossible. Until there is a metric for quantifying how powerful a console is, every response will be subjective.

Anyone wanting to discuss how powerful a console is will need to first debate how we're going to measure it. Once consensus is reached and a unit of measure ratified (Flops? Ops? Shaded pixels per second? Bozomips? Pixels peek draw per GB per GB/s median average bandwidth attained 90% of operation per GB/s minimum bottleneck bus width per instruction per clock per processor core per pixels drawn on screen in interquartile number of games?), then we can measure these consoles and sort them by this metric.

IMO it's best to use multiple games and if the games are winning then the console is better at running games which is all that really matters in the end. iI will never call a console that can't run most games better or higher rez more powerful.

Last edited by zeldaring - on 27 July 2024