Alby_da_Wolf said: Squilliam said: Alby_da_Wolf said: Squilliam said: ^ Reasonable is one of the few in here who are reasonable. Though I have caught him being unreasonable a few times. If you're saying everybody here is lunatic except you, we won't contradict you... BTW, would you mind trying this nice long, long sleeved shirt on?     You don't have that shirt in my colour! No, but it matches the room's one!

How will I ever find my Wii in that room?! You never message me.

^^
I'm against messaging, I prefer to have more time to check what I write before sending it...
Anyhow, you can follow Wii's voice

MikeB said: @ Zizzla_Rachet Geez...Just when I was about to hop on the MikeB sig wagon.... Don't think I've said anything new there...

Just a joke mister MikeB...

I never even read your post...

MikeB said: @ NightAntilli The X360 is far from being maxed out. Believe whatever suits you best. But most often (much more so than the average VGChartz member) I do present evidence, whenever I can to support my statements. you want the X360 to be maxed out You are plain wrong here, I do not want this at all. In fact, when Epic games claimed they had maxed out the XBox 360 when original Gears of War was released (which I bought and played through), I stated that I doubted that what they claimed was actually true. To some extend it may have been correct, like tapping all of the available Xenon resources (I refer to the diagram for 360 launch games as shared by me earlier within this thread). But I pointed towards the option to perform deep low-level optimisations. Also even if maxed out for certain gaming functions, this is not entirely a precise science. For instance you can take away some stuff here and there to allow to add things here and there elsewhere with regard to other game engine functions. For example less onscreen enemies can allow for a higher quality for the remaining characters. Or for example by having less varierty of textures (and reuse them a lot throughout the game) this will require less storage space, thus allowing for higher quality textures on a disc. In addition there's art design and style, although technical issues affect this. Good art design and smart tricks (smoke and mirror effects) can result in better looking games than games based on superior game engine technology.

The X360 CPU can handle 6 threads simultaneously. I doubt programmers have come that far along that they can do that efficiently in such a short time. Same as the PS3, which is even a worse nightmare to program for. But you are right about the rest of your story, and I hope you are aware "smoke and mirrors" happens in PS3 games as well, not just the X360. I think it especially happens in games like Killzone and Uncharted. The PS3 is not that powerful as people tend to believe it to be. It's pretty much on par with the X360. It might just be better with physics and particle effects etc, but on other stuff the X360 might have the advantage again. So the X360 being maxed out, but PS3 still having "tons of power" left, I don't believe that for a second. Or they are both being maxed out, or neither, because they both have their strengths and weaknesses and it's not like the PS3 is more powerful on every front. Remember the Crysis 2 remark?

@ NightAntilli

Of course and in the end, the end experience matters the most. Not the tricks used to achieve this.



I would say the PS3 is a lot more powerful than people realize (not the 360 at this point, I think its potential is being overestimated by fans at this point). I think Uncharted 2 is already well beyond what most people expected from the PS3 2 years ago.



I expect Crysis 2 to have an edge on the PS3, however it's designed as a multi-platform title. So we probably won't see the game take full advantage of the Blu-Ray capacity nor the Cell as for example you can't have one version of the game with twice the amount of onscreen activity as another version, which would otherwise result into a very different game.

MikeB said: I would say the PS3 is a lot more powerful than people realize (not the 360 at this point, I think its potential is being overestimated by fans at this point). I think Uncharted 2 is already well beyond what most people expected from the PS3 2 years ago.

I would say the opposite,

Forza 3 shows just how much power the 360 has under it's hood, it's on par (many say better) in graphics to GT5:P with a lot more lighting effects and track detail, turn 10 also said there is still more power in the 360 but it all takes time effort and money to get that potential, same can be said for the ps3 in terms of potential but it's the developers that have given the PS3 the most stick this gen for being a nightmare to program for whilst being not as powerful as sony made out,

You remember the producer of MGS4 saying how he wasn't impressed with the PS3? what about the people who make Crysis? what about Epic games? so many developers have praised the 360 while at the same time being disappointed in the ps3, I obviously don't need to provide links to all this because it was covered by VGC many times before when developers came forward,

Both systems have lots of potential but I do now feel that the 360 is showing it in the masses after seeing this years E3, games that look on par (and better) than the best being offered on the ps3 whilst also having the most support from developers, impressive stuff right there!

 

But I will say this, It is very exciting watching the 360/ps3 trying to compete with each other in terms on games and graphics, it's a win win situation for owners of both these systems, the games we get are epic!

Just when you start missing MikeB's make believe, he delivers.

magik10 said: Just when you start missing MikeB's make believe, he delivers.

Yeah, looks like I won't be changing my signature after all lol.

You know if my dad or mum went around saying that I had untapped potential all the time, im pretty sure that everyone would conclude on the spot I was either lazy or there was something wrong with me.

^Developers and gamers have different interests and values when it comes to measuring consoles' "potential" and "power".

As a gamer, I'm interested in the final result of that potential: I want to have great graphics and sound, lots of action on screen, credible and engaging AI, smooth network features, fast streaming and quick loading.

As a developer, I'm much more interested in the process: how easy it is to obtain a given target, how much will it cost me, how portable it will be to other platforms, how maintainable and reusable will be my code, how much know-how is needed by my coders and artists.

The fact that Epic, Valve, Crytek guys have been hard on the exotic architecture of the PS3 is hardly surprising. They are first and foremost interested in processes and tools and have a heavy PC-centric background.

But in the end if I measure a console's power as a gamer, shouldn't I measure it by what some developers were able to give me as a final product, and not by what some developers would have liked the process to be like?

When was the last time you went to see a great movie, but came out saying "yeah, that movie was great, but I heard it was really hard to get the authorization papers to film that scene on the Empire State Building"? Or when watching the Sistine Chapel "it's great, but I resent that Michelangelo almost ruined his health by working on it"? As long as it was made, as a spectator I'm happy with it.