taxman said:
I guess that is where your argument fails.... As you say here, the quality of the finished product is based on the Man hours put into the engine. This means that as far as multiplatform titles are concerned, the performance of the engine is limited by the budget and it has nothing to do with the true performance capabilities of the systems. Since it is harder to programme for the PS3 then it suffers more from this constraint and hence you can prove nothing with only comparing the two titles you selected... Fact is that an engine that takes advantage 100% of the PS3 power is not yet available and there is no way of knowing how this would perform. No one knows yet, but if i had a guess I would say it is much more likely that the 360 is closer to the top if its capabilities than the PS3 |
Actually every single title in that list - except for Oblivion/CODIII show advantages for the Xbox360 version in resolution or MSAA levels or both. The specific examples I had more information about.
in the real world we all live in - even developers haha, have to live within a budget. If I have 3 minutes per day to apply makeup and I have two different products to use, one gives me the better result in 3 minutes it doesn't matter how pretty I look with 6 minutes and the other product does it? So for that real world application one is obviously better than the other. But yes, you'd have to prove that the rockstar people didn't infact spend MILLIONS of dollars on both the Xbox360 and PS3 versions of the game to really disprove what I've been saying, the rest is just supporting stuff.
You know appeals to faith about untapped potential don't real sway more than the converted. So you're saying theres no way of knowing? And yet you seem to think this implies outrageous potential? Its like you're begging the question and other stuff that doesn't win you debates.
Tease.











