ermm at op, you still not got back to me on comparing 2 tps; uncharted and geow. You also haven't replied to why majority of fps never look as good as tps.

Just wanted to point out that this is the ONLY Killzone 2 thread in Hot Topics! Finally!!

Sorry, I can't seem to find the original question. Can you tell me what page/post it is? 

As for fps vs tps, it's just that since FPS are much more popular, nameless studios can push out a mediocre FPS and make a decent buck out of it. Many more FPS = many more mediocre looking FPS. There really isn't a technological reason why TPS shouldd look better than FPS. In fact, to me, it's always been the opposite.

good thread, one of the only fair post i seen in a long time.

See, that sounds opposite from what you said before, even though both statements are consistent.  Although how outdated can it be, if the clusters are so effective? 

Agreed on the tie-in ratio though, which makes what the PS3 actually has more impressive. 
Also agreed on the clusters being a loss for Sony.  But someday -- some glorious day! -- it'll sell for a profit; and in the meantime it is awesome PR. 

@op dont know what page it was but all i was asking was if you could make a thread similar to this comparing geow and uncharted. after all they are both very similar and you also get to see vegitation lol

First and foremost this has to be the smartest most unbiased thread I ever read on this site.

I agree totally with you on some key points such as:

1) When you stated that the graphics get lower in quality when atmospheric conditions change in the game such as cracks on the floor and vegetation etc...this is true even noticeable in some games that I have played which the game actually starts to slow down not ALOT but noticeably starts to lag...

Im a little not so impressed with:

The fact that your comparing 2 games witch are in a different genre...Killzone 2 is first person of course you know this and Gears of War 2 is in 3rd person...I know you mainly compared them two because thats what people generally argue about and are both in their own respect the best looking games for each system. I just have one question since Im not "technologically" up there as yourself...

Does a game suffer more if your palying it through 1st person as oppose to playing it in a 3rd person view?

What Im asking is mainly is it harder to have alot going on screen such as vegetation,cracks, broken walls and floors in a 1st person because of the view your getting?

Does a 3rd person shooter fair better in quality because of its camera view?

Cell CPU in PS3 - Powerful compared to x86/PPC and cheaper than an IBM Cell server

Cell CPU in PS3 - Fairly weak and outdated compared to the PowerXCell 8i

I don't see how those 2 things are opposites.  The clusters may be effective compared to x86 but they are outdated compared to the PowerXCell 8i clusters. Also, effective compared to what? To x86? To a supercomputer? 

The only reason people use the PS3 in projects like those is because they are cheap. If IBM Cell servers cost the same, trust me, no one would touch the PS3 with a 100 foot poll for those projects.

I may in the future. Right now I don't have Uncharted so I can't do that comparison.

@Just2Fresh

There is very little difference between a FPS and TPS. In a TPS, the engine has to render an additional character that is fairly close to the camera and therefore requires higher resolution textures. Sure, in a FPS the character can get closer to a wall or whatnot, but the same can be said about games like GoW In which weapons can be zoomed in. personally, I don't think there is much of a difference, and if there was, I think the exact same game would be easier to render in first person compared to third person.

Don't get bent out of shape.  I know the statements aren't actually contradictory -- I said so.  I was just noting that calling it 'weak and outdated' in the one post gives a much different impression than calling it 'decently powerful yet cheap' in the other.  Do you deny that that's the case?

But I still have to disagree with the assessment that it's outdated.  It depends on your definition, I guess -- but the fact that the PS3 solution is effective enough for big, serious projects to choose to use it says to me that it's not "outdated" if it's able to compete in the marketplace with the latest supercomputers.  (From black hole research to Air Force projects IIRC.)

If Ferraris cost the same as Toyota Camrys, there might be a different car in my dad's garage right now.  What's your point?