At the moment im still reading lots of person who claim the Xbox system is better because it has a better GPU. Not necessarily here particularly, but thats sometime im really used to hear and read. Not sure why anyone is hating on MikeB since obviously it is still a common misconception used to argue and critic the PS3.

Link please, because he isn't saying anything like that in the Edge interview. He's clearly saying the PS3 hardware is slower.

I think the power and potential of the PS3 has really started to shine over the last year when it's put in the hands of a really talented team with a decent amount of time and money behind them. They have really taken advantage of the Cell and Blu Ray space to free up the GPU and limited RAM available.

Question is...why has it taken so long? One reason is because it's a complex architecture that takes time to get used to.

After all it came out a year after the 360 so it should be more powerful so the fact the 360 continually out performed it technically on the majority of multi plat games was and still is a cause for concern.

I think Alan Wake will show us what the 360 can (or cannot) really do when given time and money. Personally I think MS made a mistake not making HDD as standard but that's from a hardcore gamer point of view. There are a lot of arcade units out there and MS make a lot of money and sales on digital distribution of XBLA software which only require the internal HD or memory card.

Whatevers hes saying we all know that the game needs to be develop specifically on PS3 to produce the result it is suppose to give because its a very different architecture. If they dont do that and simply port their code over using GPU and CPU only sure its gonna be slower.

ive just got off gow3 beat hades, and onto part after you knock gia off cliff.

clearly best looking game this gen

 its not a big deal but my point is proven and ive read lots of stuff on rage and the differences between the console version eitherway im buying it on pc lol .

Developer friendliness aside, Carmack did acknowledge that the PS3 version will look slightly better due to more storage space for high-resolution textures, thanks to Blu-ray Disc’s 50GB capacity. “All of the key scenes, the things anyone is going to take a screenshot of are going to look exactly the same on both platforms. They’ll get the high quality compression,” said Carmack. “But if you go into some areas in the wasteland, like behind a fence where nobody will typically go and explore, this is where the 360 version may look a little blurry compared to the PS3.”

the 360 version is going to be 2 discs its gonna be another FF13 pretty much.

so onto the fps..

"Everything is designed as a 60Hz (fps) game. We expect this to be 60Hz on every supported platform," id's John Carmack told Edge after an article in the latest issue observed that the PS3 version was currently lagging behind in performance terms.

so there you go

Of course the game will output a 60Hz signal. It has to in order to be compatible with today's TV standards. That doesn't mean the game will render at 60fps. This is no different than Remedy claiming Alan Wake is 720p because it uses an internal software upscaler rather than the 360 hardware scaler.

And lack of space for textures has nothing to do with rendering speed. Blu-ray does not make the RSX/Cell faster. Besides, it's well known that Carmack has been trying for a long time to persuade Microsoft to remove the pointless 2GB video partition from the 360 DVD's. This may very well be just an attempt to put pressure on Microsoft.

Here it is: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/carmack-id-rage-xbox-ps3,news-2254.html

FTA: Carmack did acknowledge that the PS3 version will look slightly better due to more storage space for high-resolution textures, thanks to Blu-ray Disc’s 50GB capacity. “All of the key scenes, the things anyone is going to take a screenshot of are going to look exactly the same on both platforms. They’ll get the high quality compression,” said Carmack. “But if you go into some areas in the wasteland, like behind a fence where nobody will typically go and explore, this is where the 360 version may look a little blurry compared to the PS3.”

OOPS, too late!

No, Rage will be designed to run at 60FPS, Doom 4 will run at 30FPS or their respective hertz numbers. This has been stated and explicitly clarified by John Carmack himself. Oh and the plot does thicken with regards to AW, there have also been scenes with a measured 720P resolution as well.

LOL no dude hes using hz as another way of saying fps , others have thought that but proven wrong. just look it up

the game is huge due to the textures thats why the 360 version is going to be at least 2 discs even if they remove the useless crap on the 360 dvd it will still be compressed and multiple discs.

the engine is made to run in 60 fps (hz in carmack terms) when it ships they will run the same and ps3 version will be slightly more clear due to less compression.

dude dont argue anymore there is no point , just accept it , its really no skin off your back its just technical mumbo , was FF13 that terrible to play on 360? not at all it was almost the same such minor differences