GranTurismo said: In your post game boy you said that the PS3 has a low amount of Ram, when infact it has the same amount of Ram as the 360, the PS3 shares its Ram between the CPU/GPU. Plus most people know that the FPS are going to increase next year in the madden sports games, considering last years games on the 360 all ran at 30 FPS. Sony and many other companies have already been able to bring the PS3 past the 360 in Graphics, Sony has made serveral sports games at 1080p and 60FPS, plus the guys behind GT have made their game run at the same specs. Games like Killzone, RFOM and unreal have proven that the PS3 is can do just as much if not more then the 360.

Yes indeed, games have proven that the PS3 is not being used to its full potential. I do not dispute this; however I think Sony's choice of architecture makes it very difficult for everyone other than Sony to make great games. The PS3 should, for the money, have better than the 360 every time, not sometimes. And it is a low amount of RAM in the context of the price tag. You're basically saying the PS3 is used equally to the 360, and I think currently that's a best-case scenario, and I was trying to explain why. You can't bash me on fanboyism either because I don't like Microsoft and never buy their products if I can but have to admit they have a better console setup especially with the price factored in.

Did Sony not do the same thing last gen, they made their system the hardest to develop for and tossed DVD into the mix. And look where that got them, the best selling console ever :P

Once developers get the hang of the coding and architecture, a choice few will release their engines to other developers (for a few of course) and this should help push the PS3 furthermore.

Killzone 2 seems like a demonstration of what the PS3 can achieve. Maybe the collaboration between Sony and Epic for Unreal Tournament will push a general release of their engine for other developers to use.

GranTurismo said: In your post game boy you said that the PS3 has a low amount of Ram, when infact it has the same amount of Ram as the 360, the PS3 shares its Ram between the CPU/GPU. Plus most people know that the FPS are going to increase next year in the madden sports games, considering last years games on the 360 all ran at 30 FPS. Sony and many other companies have already been able to bring the PS3 past the 360 in Graphics, Sony has made serveral sports games at 1080p and 60FPS, plus the guys behind GT have made their game run at the same specs. Games like Killzone, RFOM and unreal have proven that the PS3 is can do just as much if not more then the 360.

 It was never the issue in the original post that the PS3 couldn't do better than the 360, it was just the reality of making it happen, and making it happen consistently.

Anyway, thanks for the post Game_boy, I learned a lot. 

routsounmanman said: Nothing new. Everybody -I hope- knows that Playstation 3 is (not by a large margin mind) more powerful that the Xbox360 mainly due to the Cell CPU. On the other hand it's unknown waters even for Sony; I fear it's potential won't be fully exploited until very far in its lifetime.

Fans tend to exaggerate the differences. Last gen, informed fans knew the XB was more powerful than the GCN by a small margin, yet now, when told the Wii is roughly 2-3 times more powerful than the Cube, many seem to think this makes it as powerful as an original XBox. If fanboys think "2-3 times"is marginally more powerful, it may explain why so many expect the PS3 to be so much greater than the 360.

GranTurismo said: Did Sony not do the same thing last gen, they made their system the hardest to develop for and tossed DVD into the mix. And look where that got them, the best selling console ever :P

Third parties had no choice... the PS2 sold like crazy... they had to support it! Look at most of the PS2's first couple of years titles... a lot look like garbage....some even look as bad as PS1 games. It wasn't until third parties figured out how to program for it that we started getting good looking third party games. Some third parties were better then others though and Sony having developed the hardware did the best job of making games look good on it.

valen200 said: ^^^ I think one of the most important things he said was that a console should not be viewed as raw numbers. Also, Unreal is not out yet so it has not proved anything. I have heard the Graphics on RFOM are good, but the point was that Sony had promised the biggest baddest system ever, not one that could do as much as the other Hd system on the market.

UT3 to many people's eyes look graphicly bettter than the pc version. Better lighting, and textures etc.. I watched both videos in gametrailers, and for a fact the ps3 version looks marginally better.

GranTurismo said: Did Sony not do the same thing last gen, they made their system the hardest to develop for and tossed DVD into the mix. And look where that got them, the best selling console ever :P

 

That approach doesn't seem to be working this time around. :)

Game_boy said: GranTurismo said: In your post game boy you said that the PS3 has a low amount of Ram, when infact it has the same amount of Ram as the 360, the PS3 shares its Ram between the CPU/GPU. Plus most people know that the FPS are going to increase next year in the madden sports games, considering last years games on the 360 all ran at 30 FPS. Sony and many other companies have already been able to bring the PS3 past the 360 in Graphics, Sony has made serveral sports games at 1080p and 60FPS, plus the guys behind GT have made their game run at the same specs. Games like Killzone, RFOM and unreal have proven that the PS3 is can do just as much if not more then the 360. Yes indeed, games have proven that the PS3 is not being used to its full potential. I do not dispute this; however I think Sony's choice of architecture makes it very difficult for everyone other than Sony to make great games. The PS3 should, for the money, have better than the 360 every time, not sometimes. And it is a low amount of RAM in the context of the price tag. You're basically saying the PS3 is used equally to the 360, and I think currently that's a best-case scenario, and I was trying to explain why. You can't bash me on fanboyism either because I don't like Microsoft and never buy their products if I can but have to admit they have a better console setup especially with the price factored in.

I don't think you can say that the PS3 should be better in most games because it has a higher price tag. It could be argued that things such as blu-ray, free online, etc. make it worth the greater cost. You can compare the value but you need to compare the complete package.

I totally agree with you on your comparison though. I think Sony are quite devious with their descriptions of the power of the PS3 (www.playb3ond.com) and the ease of development

It really seems to me that all Sony's descisions stem from the assumption that their dominance from the previous generation would just carry over. They chose an arcitecture with a lot of potential. If they were dominating this would pay off, as developers would have no choice but to work with it and those that mastered it could expect to make a lot of money. However, they are selling woefully so there isn't a huge incentive to spend a lot of time on the PS3 to get tap its treasure with so few potential buyers. Thus we are seeing games with framerate issues and inferior ports when compared to the 360.

I also think that whilst there are certain aspects of a console that are tuned toward initial ease of development or greater potential with effort, there are also such things as plain bad descisions. I don't think if a game is bad for the PS3 it can nessessarily be said "Well that's because it has so much potential but they didn't put in the time".

^^ You are right, the pricetag doesn´t mean the games have to look better. But Sonys boasts of the best visuals in gaming are very bad for their business. You can´t scream "We have the most powerfull console ever" and quietly add "But it will take a while to unlock this power... and screw third parties they are just lazy"