If you look at the pure specs what you'll see is 9 active processors at 3.2ghz in the ps3 and 3 in the 360.

And ram wize you'll see 512mg gddr3 rams in the 360 operating at 700mhz while you'll see 256mb gddr3 ram in the ps3 operating at 700 mhz and 256 mb xdr ram operating at 3.2 ghz.

:p

Furthermore. Practically all multiplat games that run worse on the ps3 were either early in the life cycle, on the unreal engine (built for singlecore technology. Fitting with the 360 because it's cores share. Bottlenecking eachother) or in general made by developers who dump everything on the ppu (one of the ps3s cores) not using the spus.

Yes if you only use the ppu you can get a slightly inferior game to using all 3 of the 360s cores :p

But heres the trick. There are 6.5 other processors you can use. And they'll do anything. You can throw ai at them, various junk code, Rendering. That's right. The SPUs can render FOR the graphics card. I showed this like.. Yep i posted these pics on the first page. But i'll post them again.

I suggest you read the whole pdf. It's pretty interesting. What I showed you was just an example within the pdf.

This was from santa monicas keynote at this years gdc.

http://www.tilander.org/aurora/comp/gdc2009_Tilander_Filippov_SPU.pdf

The ps3 is also used by scientists because the powerful processor matches that of a super computer and it's used in the WORLDS STRONGEST COMPUTER. You don't think they would opt for the much cheaper 360 if it had anywhere near the same amount of juice ?

wait, wait are you supporting me or not :P

Is that a lot? Assassins Creed has over 10,000  just for Altair in a sandbox environment. Since Uncharted 1- 2 are exclusive and their levels quite linear it should'nt it be a lot more?

I doubt that, Uncharted 1 had horrible screen tearing, no motion blur and no split-screen. It was pretty...for a PS3 game, but technically it was a mess.

U2 looks a bit better, they have the motion blur and the screen tearing looks reduced, if it gets split-screen it should be up on RE5/Gears 2 level, however I doubt it will, Naughty Dog just seems to do the bare minimum.

Is that a lot? Assassins Creed has over 10,000  just for Altair in a sandbox environment. Since Uncharted 1- 2 are exclusive and their levels quite linear it should'nt it be a lot more?

I doubt that, Uncharted 1 had horrible screen tearing, no motion blur and no split-screen. It was pretty...for a PS3 game, but technically it was a mess.

U2 looks a bit better, they have the motion blur and the screen tearing looks reduced, if it gets split-screen it should be up on RE5/Gears 2 level, however I doubt it will, Naughty Dog just seems to do the bare minimum.

Cod 4 has like 20 players online. Resistance 2 has 60 players online.

Cod 4 does not really have co-op. Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op

Practically all of cod 4 are in closed or limited enviroments while resistance 2 takes place in huge open envinments

Resistance 2 is far more advanced than cod4. And some aspects look better. However, that does not equal technical superiority. The other things does.

Battlefield bad company will look better than mag ? congrats. Mag only has 256players online at the same time. Do you know what that means?

lol NO they're a generation behind. Visually I don't really think that all of your games does the trick. In particular the gears of war games. I'm not sure if you've played through uncharted. Cause it sounds like you dont. All the games you mentioned above, Does NOT have that amount of things happening animations wise at once.

It didn't seem very impressive from the demo. But games don't often do. It felt stiff and while it might have better textures, again animation wise it's behind. All games are. There is no game on the market that does anything near uncharted animation wise.

lol... No seriously. Lol

CoD4 has better graphics than Resistance 2, it also runs ar double the framerate with better lighting an animation.

Read above.

LOL That's not co-op, that's deathmatch with objectives. Co-op = Campaign with more than 1 player.

Co-op Stands for Co-operative. IE dealing with things multiple people. ERGO It has Co-Op.

They are both as linear as eachother.

Read above.

It does more characters on screen at the expense of framerate and graphics, it's not a good trade off. Especially when exclusives are supposed to look better.
More goes on in a game than what you just see at the screen.

A multiplatform game has better graphics then an exclusive. Something you seem to have trouble accepting.

I don't care that it does. I just explained why.

And? Uncharted 2 is well behind on the visual and technical front (linear to sandbox, 30fps to 60fps, no split-screen to split-screen), yet somehow animations are all that count for these specific comparisons, how lucky for uncharted.

The fact that the whole game is streamed and achieves the visuals it does with the things going on at screen, not to mention the places where you can see huuuge enviroments counts too.

Is that a lot, seems quite low for a next gen game let alone an exclusive.

what ? In comparison all your mentioned games has 1. Fail.

Oh, so it's like Resident Evil 5. Another multiplatform game.

Your point ? It can't get more realistic than mo-cap, It's people literally doing the things. lol wtf ?

There's plenty, Uncharted 2 only has 300 odd animations, this is very poor for a current generation game.But then Sonys first party is only so large, everyone else is a ways bigger.

All your mentioned games has less. And that's uncharted 1. Congratulations. Your argument fails. Again.

For sure. This is for 2 reasons:

1) Sony spent most of the budget on the disc drive instead of making the CPU/GPU/memory beefier.

2) Coming from last generation, Sony created a system with no tools and libraries, allowing them strict control over the abilities of the system, this is why last gen, Sonys 1st party games looked just that little bit better then other 3rd party exclusives.

Now, Sony doesn't have that control, third parties have been given strong tools and libraries and are running with it, that's why we're now seeing Framework 2.0 and UE3.5 and Ego and Frostbite start to over take all these custom PS3 engines, really the KZ2 engine is the only real shiner....and even then it's not going to last now CryEngine 2 and Tech 5 are here.

UE 3.5 is nothing. It basically runs on maps.  You know nothing of which you speak while i do. Your arguments are rediculous and faulty.

And none of the engines or game you've mentioned has anything on the exclusive games. So once again you're argument fails.

Did you know the cryengine tech demos city part looks far worse than killzone 2 ?

You are comparing visual fidelity with tech which gives me the impression you have no clue as to how much else is going on technically in a game.

Tell me, do you think Final Fantasy XIII looks better or worse than White Knight Story?

Who cares ? One is from a small developer, the other is from a big. And i haven't played either so how would i know ?

Furthermore it's not a first party game either. It's funny you nitpick that specific small exclusive game with that developed by the biggest company in the history over 5 years and counting.

Your case arguments are a waste of everyones time.

I think you must have been talking to your self.

Wow...just wow.

In the least I know more then you, which is enough to deal with you.

Do you develop games ?

If you knew anything about this this conversation would look a lot different. Instead it's just me repeating my self to your faulty arguments. You must know nothing about these kind of things orelse you wouldn't be saying what you do.

I believe you're simply arguing for the sake of argument. Because you don't wanna admit you're wrong. Or because you refuse to look into it because you're afread you might be.

Does one really need to point out the obvious?

 It's strange you keep referring to all these "disproven" arguments, yet offer no actual proof as to how they were disproved, you're very vague.

They're disproven because i just disproved them. As they have been by others so many times over i'm amazed you haven't realised it. Unless ofcourse you've been on a vecation since 2007.

The irony. You just spent how long talking up the animations of a game how nothing can match it's whopping 300 individual routines like it's a big number, only for that figure to be completely smashed by a 2 year old multiplatform game.

It's funny you refere to something i didn't say. I said they had 30 running on drake at once. And assassins creed has 1. Get over it. It might have 10.000. But you do realise it doesn't have 10.000 running at once right ? It has 1 for desmond. While Uncharted has 30 for drake. Pwnd.

And that's at once and not in total by the way. Incase you again fail you comprehend what i'm saying for the third time.

Theres a reason the ps3 is the one used by scientists and in the worlds strongest super computer. If the 360 had anywhere near the same juice, don't you think they would use that ? concidering it's half the price ofcourse.

All your arguments are based on opinon while some of mine are, others are not. Such as the animation system. Start learning.

well, the uncharted number of animations must be quoting something different, as it cant be beaten by a ps2 game by over double the amount according to your source. They say that 300 is a massive number on their website, so 10000 must be something different.

Plus uncharted didnt have horrible screen tearing, i dont know where youre getting that from.

 Plus on a technical note, uncharted 1 would definietly beat gears of war 1, and i bet u2 would beat gow2.

headshot91 said:

 Why? Well it hasmuch higher resolution characters and polygon counts.

Naughty dog def did not do the bare minmum, i dont know where you got that from ,thats totally wrong.

Epic games had a n engine to work from for gears, uncharted created an engine from scratch, with several different renderers running instantaneously.