Mendicate Bias said:
Reasonable said:
Mendicate Bias said:
Reasonable said:
Yawn... another Squilliam 'have a go' thread... why not explain why Halo 3, a huge big budget exclusive built from the ground up for 360 couldn't manage 720p instead?
|
The budget was around $30 million although it's substantialy higher if you include advertising, but that money doesn't go into game development.
If you ever played the first Halo you would know the horrible framerate issues the game could have and since then Bungie has made it one of their priorities to keep the framerate locked and steady. Having played 4 player co-op and large 16 player matches I have never experienced any framerate issues whatsoever. I'm sure bungie deemed it appropriate to lower the resolution slightly in order to keep the framerate steady.
The real question is why the PS3 the widley touted stronger console cant match the specs of its weaker counter-part. Despite your name you sure do seem to show a PS3 bias...
|
I have never shown any PS3 bias (if I was going to be biased it would be to PC gaming, particularly for FPS)
Second, anyone with a degree of wit would realise I was pointing out that 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'... many games on both consoles have made comprimises to get decent performance, so there's no point trying to score points on one over the other... unless you're a fanboy that is with real bias.
|
I agree however when one groups main argument is that console X is better than cosole Y because its significantly more powerful but then constantly get proven wrong then they deserve to be called out for it. If the PS3 was significantly more powerful than the 360 then it would never have to make comprimises to get decent performance. Please tell me where in my arguments I have made a fanboy statement.
|
One, the problem is people keep thinking all game engines are the same and you can just go 'PS3' is better because of game X or '360' is better because of game Y. A lot depends on the coders, the game and what they're trying to do - not all games are equal and for multiplatform games the comprimises don't necessarily mean faults with the console itself so much as code written to better exploit one rather than the other. From what I can see the port if pretty good but at the end of the day its of a game built on an engine (U3) that was built for PC first, then taken to 360 easily but which has never been fully optimised for PS3 - so any PS3 multiplatform game based on U3 engine always tends to take a hit because the engine doesn't exploit the console as well as it does PC / 360.
But both consoles have had most of their titles resolution pitched way below the mythical 1080p resolution anyway, and both have seen certain games coded well achieve much more than poorer efforts (not that I think Bioshock is a poorer effort, perhaps the real irony here is it actually looks pretty good on PS3 considering it is a port).
My view is just becuase a bunch of fanboys go on about PS3 being so powerful doesn't mean that the console itself should be bashed in a biased manner (nor should the 360 either for that matter).
Second, I didn't call you a fanboy - I was clearly aiming at the OP who needs to always try and bash the PS3 and promote the 360 - something I just find plain weird (just as weird as those who need to promote the PS3 and bash the 360). As before you seem to be missreading my statements but then again for all I know we come from different countries and our basic use of language differs.
And you know I just don't get it. Both consoles have flaws - both have strenghs - and to be honest (and showing a little bias 
) both lag behind PC for the games such as COD4, Fallout, Bioshock, etc. anyway... so I really, really don't see the point of banging on about 360 having better resolution on this game or PS3 having better resolution on that game... the PC version (when there is one) will support resolutions so far ahead of the consoles as to be hilarious. Where there isn't a PC version due to a games exlusive nature you can be pretty sure that if there was a decent PC version it would have a higher resolution anyway.
So I say take straight pops at fanboys rather than attack the consoles themselves, and again I'm not calling you a fanboy just pointint out you misread my original post and misread the focus of my reply as referring to you rather than the OP.
And I still say 'Yawn' about this whole uncessary and bait orientated thread - and I still notice Squlliam isn't explaining why the more powerful 360 couldn't support a higher resolution for Halo 3... but as you pointed out perhaps this was more to do with Bungie's coding and desire to make resolution comprimises to achieve performance vs visual fidelity... just as the developers of the Bioshock port chose to do.
