Whats funny is Carmack is the most highly rated and respected graphics guru in the entire gaming industry.

Now watch as PS fanboys make themselves look foolish by saying he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Carmack has finally shown Sony have always talked BS about the power of PS3.

so much for the ps3 being superior lol.

Ive not changed CGI, Ever since I joined tjis site I said all along that the PS3 was not as powerful as Sony made out. Many Media have said that KZ2 was the only game on PS3 to really be better than any 360 game. And the rest was really what art direction you prefer. New engines made specifically for 360 are showing what the 360 is capable of, and the Rage engine is another significant step up from any game this year in terms of tech. Out of anyone in the industry Carmack is the guy you can really trust. If he says the PS3 has limitations in comparison, he must be serious. He knows how to get the best of technology with various setups. He even states with the new ways of developing on PS3 it has limitations in comparison with the architecture for 360.

I still maintain that their is a negligable difference between the 2 systems. But it's more aimed at the people that create threads like x PS3 games new graphics king. When 360 has 3-4 games all looking amazing as well. There are plenty of PS fans who are not so silly as to put down every 360 game visually to make themselves feel better about their purchase.

FYI - make sure you read the full transcribe of what Carmack said, it changes the interpretation quite a bit.

Edge only posted part of what he said. They left out an element where he mentioned issues with the current 360 version and made it clear that he expected all versions to be 60fps, etc. by launch - i.e. this is just a progress report on building the game for multiplatforms, noting that both the HD console versions need further work at this point, the 360 with issues with texture handling, the PS3 with frame rate.

TBH you're looking both Trollish and foolish as it seems you don't actually know fully what he said and in what context, and have simply made assuptions that confirm your own biased views.

I'd normally refrain from such comments - but of late you're really starting to cross the line from putting forward opinions to simple Trolling.

Selnor, I would love for you to give me a link to this: "He even states with the new ways of developing on PS3 it has limitations in comparison with the architecture for 360."  Where did you read this or hear this, please share, because as far as I know, he said no such thing in that interview.  Oh how I hope this isn't more BS.  It would make you look really bad.  Anyhow, if Carmack had been using the same methods of development that the 1st and 2nd party Sony developers had been using, I doubt this would even be an issue.

You mean Carmack's methods of development are inferior to Sony 1st party developers?

Yes I do, but the underlying strengths and weaknesses of the architecture does help to define the implementation of software layers overtop the hardware architecture. All PS3 games for example could implement MSAA if they wanted to sacrafice in other areas, whereas the Xbox 360 has to sacrafice less to implement MSAA, therefore more Xbox 360 games implement MSAA than do PS3 games.

All I was trying to say is that the Xbox 360 rulz over all, er I mean that the performance of a system is a function of money x talant x time x system achievable performance. Therefore if the Xbox 360 is faster, its faster up until the point where you cross a threshold where you can achieve more performance on the PS3 with the same effort. If the line for most games falls before the PS3 development shines then in practical purposes its the more powerful architecture and if the line is after the point where the PS3 starts to shine then the PS3 is the more powerful architecture.

Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding CGI.  On another note, Squilliam,  the power of a console's architecture depends on what the developer can achieve with it.  Don't make things too complicated.

If it weren't for the fact that engines mature over the course of a generation, and that the PS3 (this only my opinion ;) has much more room for growth at 3 years into its lifespan than the 360 has at 4... I would agree with you.

However, as time marches on, the 360 looks less and less appealing, since there's more potential on the PS3.  The odd thing is that, when comparing the platforms, people like to compare the CPUs and GPUs to back their claims... however, in my opinion, it is the lack of a guaranteed HDD on the 360 (for fast streaming -- comparing the BD and DVD is pointless when you look at the speed of the HDD), as well as more minor performance and optical disc space limitations, that will hold late-generation games back on the 360.

You are correct in that, early in the generation, development costs and time held PS3 games back, relative to 360 titles.  I believe we have, more or less, reached the midway point, however.  Games that are heavily dependant on animation (sports, like Madden, etc.) are now held back by the relative weakness of the Xenon, to the Cell.  Games which require fast streaming for seamless huge worlds -- again held back by use of a DVD vs a HDD.

I believe Carmack's latest engine tech will eventually reach a point where the HDD of the PS3 yields substantial gains over what the 360's DVD drive provides, and that the PS3 may very well provide a much-closer-to-PC experience than the 360 will.  Carmack himself has gone on and on about how Rage's streaming tech is its greatest feature... and unless they are intentionally avoiding using the HDD (to avoid large installs), I don't see the PS3 version being slow for very long, relative to its 360 cousin.