Tird fergesson said:
You criticize my sources while not quoting, but paraphrasing the words of a developer that is known for lashing out against other consoles besides the 360. Knowing Microsoft, the company with a larger GDP than half the countries in South America paid them to say stupid things like this. Now, with literally perfect reputation of Insomniac games and Microsoft's track record, who do you trust? And you can't even name the source. You really make me sick you fanboy. But if it makes you happy I'll answer your questions. For fact one the article I posted in much more detail discredits any point you made there. Apparently you're not intuitive enough to realize that. For Fact two, I'm sure the game takes up 22gigs. I'm also sure that they didn't do everything in their power to compress it but then again, why should they? They have the space, so why use up the time and resources to compress. Another thing, you call Bullshit but do you have any proof? I thought not. So now what you can call fact and fiction isn't credible. For so called facts three and four, they would be facts if they were true. But unfortunately for your argument the cell is the name for the PS3's cpu, and it's a known FACT that the PS3's cpu is about 2 and a half times as powerful as the 360's. Think about it: the 360 has 3 processors running at 3.2 GHz each. The PS3 has 8 running at 3.2 GHz. Can you tell me which is more powerful? Now that I think about it you were completely talking out of your ass. I read the article you got that info from and not once does Ubisoft mention the Cell or give a reason for why the PS3 wouldn't be able to run their game. As for fact number 5, those are 100% your opinion and words, and based on your new found track record, I'm taking nothing you say for granted. Insomniac specifically states that Resistance and Ratchet would not be possible on DVD's and whether you like the games or not it's true. I'm not going to lie you pissed me off a little but you're just defending you're favorite console which I happen to own as well. As a matter of fact, I have bought two because one had gotten the RRoD. I Can't live without Halo:). But to be honest you have really made a fool of yourself but you can redeem yourself by apologizing. Until then make sure you know what you're talking about and don't bluff, because I will always call you on it. |
- Ubisoft developers stated that being exclusive to the 360 allows them to do much more than if they were multiplatform, but they also state they doubt they would be able to achieve what they're doing with the game on the 360 on the ps3 even if it was ps3 exclusive.
http://www.destructoid.com/new-splinter-cell-conviction-scans-ubisoft-devs-crap-on-the-ps3-update--31376.phtml
That there is one of the many articles on the subject of the PS3's ability to run AI relative to the 360's ability. At the end of the day your trying to convince me that a developer whose salary is directly paid by the multinational who owns the console a game is exclusive to is more reputable than one is who paid by an independant third-party.
As for why they would compress? I think it was Shams (you know that guy, the Mod that works for an Australian tech consulting company) who first explained to a rather aggressive person like yourself that compression simply makes good economic and technological sense. If one doesn't compress, one fills up and slows down one's servers and data banks faster, and make data transfer between development sites far slower and more costly. The only reason not to maximize compression from the outset is the PR value of saying, "we need Blu-Ray." I might add that the read speed of the PS3's Blu-Ray drive is slower than the 360's DVD drive's read speed, resulting in the neccessity of duplicating data on the Blu-Ray disk to improve stream speeds.
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=4
"In IBM’s controlled testing environment, their optimized code on 8 SPE only yielded a performance number of 155.5GFLOPS. If it took 8 SPE to achieve that, no way 6 will be able to and that testing was done in a fashion that didn’t model all the complexities of DMA and the memory system. Using a 1Kx1K matrix and 8 SPE they were able to achieve 73.4GFLOPS, but the PS3 uses 6 SPE for games and these tests were done in controlled environments. So going on this information, even 73.4GFLOPS is seemingly out of reach, showing us that Sony didn’t necessarily lie about the cell’s performance as they made clear the 218GFLOPS was “theoretical.” But just like Microsoft they definitely wanted you to misinterpret these numbers into believing they were achievable."
That is an exert from a tech analysis that indicates that in a gaming environment, the PS3's processor could not even reach one third of the 'potential' performance Sony states that it has. IT also points out that your statement about SPE's and their use is complete crap, as one is disabled, and one is used to run the PS3's OS. If you read the entire article (which I won't post as it is 11 pages long), you'll find that none of the PS3's SPE's operate REMOTELY like conventional 3.2 GH processors.
The article also discredit's the read speed of the PS3's Blu-Ray drive, and indicates that the PS3 doesn't have nearly the RAM neccessary to support the kind of detail and game length advantage you seem to believe the format gives the PS3.
Now your trolling and personal attacks can easily be undone by apologizing to me. I assure you I will accept your apology. Here are some things to remember in future:
-If you start a thread saying one console's exclusive could be done better on another console, and then scream at the people who discredit your comments that they are 'fanboys' you will come off looking a little strange and illogical.
-This is an internet forum, not CNN. You cannot expect posts based on common sense to have a source at the end EVERY SINGLE TIME.
-If you ARE going to have a source based argument, it would be better to base it on tech articles and third-party statements like I have, rather than simple quoting Sony employees, who clearly have a vested interest.
