I never actually asked that

Kind of redundant though no? Without question, CoD4 beats the technical crap out of Resistance 1 & 2, as will MW2 when it arrives, it's no stretch to say it will do the same with Resistance 3 (not even getting into MW3). This being just one of many examples, it's nice you have beliefs, but they won't always jive with reality.

More like bringing out the best of their abilities, the kicker is the best abilities of a developer working on an exclusive that is a technical labour of love can often be well overshadowed by the more abled chaps who happen to be working on a cross platform title that as a baseline is just more impressive.

Fair to say there are already multiplatform retail titles that technically outclass all of those with the exception of Killzone 2, and the title to outclass that is on the horizon.

Is it now, because from what I have seen it's been an ever moving of the technical goalposts, pretty much everything the PS3 spat out in it's first 2 years feels like i've played the same tech a half-dozen times already ...and since MS 1st party ain't all that in every genre, it's gotta be the third parties keeping up the game.

Except ...y'know, matching it like for like for multiplatform games, including ones where the PS3 is the lead platform?

It would seem that for a more expensive system, that came out a year later and was much hyped for being the actual launch for next gen that underperforming for what is 98% of it's library would make the system on the whole less powerful.

Indeed it makes me wonder that the only games that perform better on PS3 are the games the 360 could never actually have.

For disc space perhaps, for everything else, i'd have to agree with Jon Carmack on this one and say Sony really dropped the ball on everything else.

I find none of this relevant to this discussion.

A lot of those developers has never worked with a processor capable of what the ps3s can before and hence do not know how to utilise it properly.(specifically the spus) To render for them... for instance.

also the ram on the ps3s processor runs at 3.2 ghz while the xboxs shared memory runs at 700mhz :p

1. No, but games like Uncharted1&2, Mag, Resistance 2, Heavy Rain, MGS4, Killzone 2 do. Dont forget the countless developers saying PS3 can process more then the 360 could ever fathom(Exclusive developers and MP developers alike).

2. I never played Shenmue, but I am pretty sure that it did not allow you to interact with EVERYTHING, let alone letting you do it in HD quality.

Yes ShenMue let you Interact with Everything. Picking Up ramdon Items..Palying Arcade games at the Arcade..Examening Everything....That was the Premise of the Game Around A Revenge Story line.....

Kim Naroz left a really long comment on the post about the amount of power the developers are using form the Xbox 360 and Sony Playstation 3, he pointed out that the Sony PS3 display’s 275,000,000 polygons per second, compared to the 500,000,000 polygons per second of the Xbox 360.

My question is does this really matter?

Here is Kim Naroz’s Comment:
Someone needs to point out that the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second, compared to the 500,000,000 polygons per second of the Xbox 360.

That is the reason why games like John Madden Football 2008, NCAA Football 2008, All-Pro Football 2008, and many other games from EA Sports, 2K Sports, and so many others all run at 60 frames per second on the Xbox 360, but only 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3.

Gamespot specifically said in the review of those sports games: “The Xbox 360 versions run smoothly at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, while the Playstation 3 versions struggle to run at 30 frames per second at 720p resolution.”

It isn’t just sports games with that problem. Look at all the Tony Hawk Skating games, Tom Clancy Splinter Cell: Double Agent, and F.E.A.R. They have frame rates that drop below 20 frames per second on the PS3 and go into slow motion it is so bad…even though the Xbox 360 versions have very smooth framerates.

Oblivion is NOW BETTER on the Xbox 360!!!

When Oblivion was released a year later on the PS3, it used a new shader design…that had NOTHING to do with hardware technology; it was just something put into the new version of the game as a software program. The download was released for the Xbox 360 later on, but the PS3 fanboys always pointed out, “But when you compare the actual discs, the PS3 one has some advantages (although the Xbox 360 version also has advantages, and was ALWAYS rated higher).

Oblivion: Game of the Year Edition is now available for the Xbox 360, and when you now compare Oblivion on the Xbox 360 to Oblivion on the PS3, there is NO DOUBT that the Xbox 360 version is significantly better; that is why it is rated higher!

The Playstation 3 version of Oblivon is a perfect example that what this man is saying about the Hard Drive of the PS3 being used to help out with memory limitations is NOT true. Consider the FACT that the Playstation 3 version of Oblivion does NOT allow the entire world to exist in the game at the same time, like the Xbox 360 version does. This is because of the Memory Bandwidth hardware bottleneck of the Playstation 3.

Also, when it comes to RAM, the Xbox 360 certainly DOES have fundamental advantages over the Playstation 3!

For example, the CPU of the PS3 can NEVER access more than 256MB of RAM at any point. The Xbox 360 CPU is free to access up to 512MB of RAM if there was a need. With the PS3, there are plenty of times when the CPU needs more than 256MB of RAM, and the Video-RAM of the PS3 is actually using less than 256MB of RAM, which means that if the PS3 had a Unified RAM environment–like the Xbox 360’s–then that unused Video-RAM could help the CPU, like it does on the Xbox 360. OBVIOUSLY, the Xbox 360 RAM design is much more flexible; it helps developers in ways that they enjoy working with.

Plus, it’s important to remember that the original design of the Playstation 3 called for the used of TWO Cell CPU processors–each with two Threads that could Send signals to the SPE subprocessors.

However, when Sony saw the design of the Xbox 360, and they saw how much better the Xbox 360 was, then Sony was forced to redesign the Playstation 3 very quickly in a way that hurt the PS3 system. This is nearly identical to what happened with Sega and the Saturn. Sega saw how much better the original PS1 was, and they were forced to quickly redesign the Saturn in a way that used parallel processing that was difficult to work with and was more expensive. This is EXACTLY what happened with the Playstation 3.

The original design of the PS3 was not even supposed to used a GPU, because it was going to have two of the Cell CPU processors. But when Sony saw the revolutionary ATI GPU in the Xbox 360 that was Custom designed for the Xbox 360, and was 1.5 years ahead of its time (since the PC didn’t see similar Unified Shader technology until January 30, 2007), then Sony was forced to removed one of the Cell CPUs in the PS3, and instead add a Nvidia GPU. But there was NOT time to custom design the GPU, so Sony was forced to included a four-year old generic GPU in the PS3. That is why people often point out the vast superiority of the Xbox 360 GPU.

Now that the PS3 only has one 3.2Ghz Cell CPU, it means that the PS3 has only two Threads capable of Sending signals to the six SPE sub-processors running parallel. Each of those six SPE processors is capable of Receiving a Threaded signal; however, the PS3 CPU is only capable of Sending two Threaded signals. This is where the hardware “bottleneck” of the PS3 reveals itself. Programmers often say that the PS3 has two arms (CPU Threads) that are trying to juggle six balls (SPE sub-processors). Obviously, that is NOT possible, and that is why the Playstation 3 hardware is such a BIG disappointment.

With the Xbox 360, Microsoft used a much newer and better form of technology. PCs often brag about their “dual-core” CPU design. The Xbox 360 actually takes that to the next level and used a “tri-core” CPU design, with each CPU using the most developer-favored videogame processor available–the PowerPC.

The Xbox 360 is literally the exact opposite when compared to the Playstation 3 in terms of hardware design and efficiency. The Xbox 360 has three 3.2Ghz CPUs, each with two Threads capable of Sending instructions. But the Xbox 360 doesn’t the outdated parallel processing environment of the PS3. There are no “sub-processors” to worry about with the Xbox 360. The signals can be focused on CPU and GPU commands. This literally means the Xbox 360 has six arms (CPU Threads) that are being asked to juggle only two balls (GPU and CPU functions).

THAT is why the developers absolutely LOVE the Xbox 360 and can design games so much more efficiently for the Xbox 360.

THAT is why games are released so much earlier for the Xbox 360.

THAT is why the overwhelming majority of Xbox 360 games offer better graphic and online performance on the Xbox 360.

THAT is NOT going to change!

It may be easier to port a PS3 game to the Xbox 360 than it is to port an Xbox 360 to the PS3 (since the Xbox 360 is more powerful in terms of videogame performance–500,000,000 polygons for the Xbox 360 is more than the 275,000,000 for the PS3), but the Xbox 360 will continue to be the Lead Platform this generation for two reasons:

(1) Because the Xbox 360 is so much easier for developers to develop games for and experiment with new types of gameplay.

(2) Because the Xbox 360 has sold over Eight-Million more systems than the Playstation 3, and that lead continues grow by hundreds of thousands of systems each month, in terms of Worldwide Sales.

bolded is mine.

Also. All your arguments are old and pretty much disproved. lol

1. You diregard my statement, yet have nothing that can point to otherwise......

2.So you were just as confused as I was, lol XD

3. RE5 doesn't look as good as Uncharted, in character models, animations, OR environments. The animations of the zombies(?) were fucking terrible in comparison to enemies in the original Uncharted, let alone the new one.The main character models in RE5 stand out like a sore thumb to the backgrounds as they are apparently much more detailed then the environment. Now RE5 is no bad looker by any standard, but it doesn't outperform Uncharted in any way either.

From those very pictures I can say without any doubt in my mind that Resident Evil DOES look marginally better then Uncharted. But I think Uncharted 2 will look better, whenever we get screens for it. Is it gonna be at E3?

ofcourse they will say it will only work on PS3 because it is exclusive to that console duh :P

@Shadowblind
I beg to differ. The colors seem to just pop in Uncharted to me. UNcharted uses actual indentations in clothing/etc to mimic actual fabric while from the RE5 pics u can tell it is more so reliant on the texture work. This makes it not look as good to me. I think the main thing that stands out in RE5 pics is the tree and it's shadows. Yet that would be different if the U2 pics had actual trees in them.

The second U2 pic is not as high quality as the first. You can see NDQAA21 has a RE5 like texturing problem.Sully in the background also looks like a second hand model from the first game(probably is). I selected that one on purpose so ppl can gauge what to realistically expect from the game. Also, those are pics from the multiplayer so they are bound to be a step up in the actual singleplayer or some models could be place holders.

Yet I geuss your opinion is just as valid as mine :\