The way you talk about the code only using 30% of the Cell makes it seem like there are tremendous bottlenecking problems with the GPU.

It's not like the early PS2 games only worked its processor at 30% of its maximum rate - they were working the processor at maximum capacity, they were just poorly optimized. Games get better over time not because developers figure out how to use more of the processor - that's easy. They get better because developers figure out how to do more with less usage.

Edit: To clarify, it's absurdly easy to increase processor usage - write more code.  Place more enemies, etc.  If you're not using the whole capacity it's got to be because non-processing issues prevent you from doing so, such as a video card that can't handle what you want to add.  My understanding of all of these "we're only using X%" statements was similar to HappySqurriel's.  It's not a measure of processor usage but a measure of processor efficiency, which is probably a flop ratio and which is probably artificially low because of the PS3's absurdly high theoretical maximum.

This is EXACTLY what I mean when I say that developers throw around numbers like 30%.

Lair apparently uses 40%, right? And Infamous is basically on par with Lair in terms of graphics...there doesn't seem to be a correlation between 30% and how good a game will look.

A game later on that uses 86% of the capabilities of the PS3 will look better, but by how much? Don't expect games to suddenly look 100x better...every console gets better looking games down the line once developers figure out how to best optimize everything.

I don't give a crap that current PS3 games only use 30% of its power...show me the first game to use 75%+, and then we'll talk...

And why the heck are they only using 30%? Why don't they use 100?

 because someone needing a reason to brag?

A friend of a friend whose brother works at a game company said they are only using 30% of the system. Therefore, it must be the truth.

URNotE, I will say this right now.

Would I buy a game now even if it looked like something from the N64 era? If the gameplay was solid, you bet your ass I'd be first in line. Katamari Damacy is a perfect example. You can't tell me those graphics were "top of the line" or "pushing the PS2's graphical power". But god damn that game was amazing. I still play it now and then.

Graphics do not make or break a game. Gameplay comes first, always.

Well, actually he said 30% from the SPUs

They must be using 100% of the GPU already, so they needed the SPUs :P

 Reminds me of the Sega Saturn vs Playstation. I believe it was the same scenario. The Saturn was more powerful than PS1 but harder to program for , "but just wait till they show off its full potential..."

Same with N64. The only people to really push the system were Rare and Nintendo... The other developers didn't wanna waste like a whole year trying to optimize a game.

As much as I'd like to say it's not like that...the Saturn scenario is pretty similar...I guess we'll just have to bear with people saying the PS3 has unlimited potential for a while...

The point is, since you missed it in your fanboy crazed rant, why would someone tell you that they are just giving you 30 percent of an effort. I mean the guys says, "We are not even attemping to optimize the code............", sounds pretty much like a half effort to me. You take from it what you want.