CGI-Quality said:
tuscaniman said:
The 360 is fully capable of putting out games that look as beautiful as the PS3. Just watch some Alan Wake footage or get ready for some Halo:Reach footage in the future. Enough of the X console is better than X console because this bush is in the corner. Both consoles are pretty much on an even plain when it comes to graphics. Yes Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 are the two top dogs in graphics at the moment, but as I said Alan Wake and Halo:Reach will have something to say about that.
Second of all when the PS3 does graphics the PC isn't capable of then we can discuss throwing away the DVD medium. You guys realize Crysis is on a DVD right? Switching discs (if needed for a game) is not tedious or a deal breaker. If it is either of those to someone choosing between consoles then they need to see a psychiatrist.
|
Despite that, the systems still have differences and each is better at certain things than the other. They may not be miles apart in capabilities, but there are differences. It isn't about a "war" for many, but it is what it is. These two have their differences, and nobody claimed the 360 wasn't a capable machine either, at least not when it comes to beautiful games.
|
I agree 100% CGi, I think it has more to do with expectation's more than anything.
why cannot all game's look like MGS:4, or Like uncharted, or Alan Wake etc.
just because you have some developer's that do a great job in a game they develop there are some developer's that may not have the better skill, or maybe they do not have the better budget. 
the HARDWARE of each platform has distinctive way's to develop content for each platform and
for example just on OS footprint's alone
the xbox360 OS
the original Xbox ran an OS that had its roots in Windows 2000. Granted, by the time you strip out everything that is not needed in a console like the Xbox and replace some of the parts with stuff specific to that device (like the file system), and add a few pieces, it hardly resembles anything remotely like Windows 2000 at all. But you could say that's where its original roots lie, even if 95 percent of it has been cut or heavily altered.
The Xbox 360's OS, in turn, has its roots in the OS of the original Xbox. I've been told (not by Microsoft, but by one of its hardware partners) that the Xbox absolutely positively does NOT run Linux [oops, the censors missed that one --Ed.] or Unix or some variant of that. The Xbox 360 project started with the Xbox OS the same way the Xbox project started with Windows 2000. They cut, added, and changed it in both large and small ways. It's now quite a bit different from the Xbox OS, which was itself quite a bit different from Windows 2000.
Really, the best way to think of it is as "The Xbox 360 OS." But if you really have to think of it in Windows terms, you could say it has roots in Windows 2000 by way of the original Xbox, albeit with sweeping changes along the way.
while the playstation 3 OS
Developer
Q-Games LTD a development company based in Kyoto japan developed the graphics technology behind the XMB
so as you can see
these are completely seperate OS's so how you make software and it's design is going to have some thing's that may not run as well or may have some effect's in the process of development that maybe unforseen.
with crossplatform tool's, APi's , your or other's Game engine and experience of developer's has with the hardware all playing a big part of all that development than add in the time that your putting into development and than budget and how much time you may or may not have all play's into that into that.
It's not all clear cut and dry. that why If anything it's pretty moot because it all boil's down to the development team's and what they are able to do with each machine.
since all three machine's have great game's that represent what has been able to be done on each system it's pretty much moot
these system's are for entertainment, and I think many could agree all three system's has game's thsat are entertaining and also the PC..
Essay Pro