It's a corridor shooter... I don't see why it couldn't be done in any of the last gen consoles, let alone the Wii.

... nothing new here.

Differences between the CPU/GPU capabilities are irrelevant after some years of development.

Uh huh. Written by an amateur filled with innaccuracies.

The gameplay could be exactly the same (with different controls, of course). The graphics would be obviously downgraded. It would be the same game, just as playing Team Fortress 2 at 1680x1050 with 16xAA is the same game as Team Fortress 2 at 640x480 with no AA.

It's fine to speculate, but you haven't named one single element in the game which you think the Wii can't replicate.

Enlighten us, then.

Part of the experience of playing a game, the visuals and the sound; stuff that's kind of more aesthetic and contributes to how you feel about a game, and how it relates to you, and can affect those things more than story or game-play at times. Graphics and sound may not be everything in a game, but they can make all the difference, and those would be the first things sacrificed in attempting to bring some HD games to Wii.

There are a million other reasons why they wouldn't make the same game, jumping to technical reasons is nothing than that, a jump to conclusions.

Regarding online, PCs with lower power than the Wii have had the same or higher online functionality than PS360 games for years. Online doesn't require much in terms of CPU.

I know you're not attacking the Wii. But your guess apparently has no foundation on any facts, as you are unable to name a single concrete thing Dead Space has that other games don't have (games that work on systems less powerful than the Wii).

There are even technically similar Wii games already in existence (look at Metroid Prime 3 for example... which has the added features of bigger environments and running at 60 fps which Dead Space doesn't).

"This means that the PS3 can’t get more then 24 pixel pipelines at any given time, whereas the 360 GPU can have 48 pipelines open to developers to be used for pixel and vertex pipelines therefore explaining why most multiplatform titles have a better frame rate on 360 than their PS3 counterpart."

Well here is pretty bad, he claims that the GPU alone "explains" the reason why 360 games framerates are better, when if anything that'd be more towards the nature of why 360 versions of effects (transparancies, dof, motion blur) are present when they're either removed, temporal or just plane downgraded on PS3.

There are many reasons why framerates are better on 360 and the GPU is just one of them, the biggest real factor would be that it's just plain easier to make 360 games, which gives you more time to polish it's aspects as a whole.

"Now here’s the tricky bit, the Cell can be used to handle vertex calculations, which means it can decrease the work needed to be done on the GPU, which explains why some of the multiplatform games have framerate issues on the PS3."

Ok, so if the Cell is supposed to help the RSX with this to "make up" for it's GPU deficiencies, how come PS3 versions of multiplatform games still have these problems?

"Developers don’t take the time and effort to change the coding from working on those 8 vertex shaders to the CPU which is done with Uncharted 2, even during the early PS3 lifecycle the SPU’s weren’t used."

Says who? Sounds like he's saying "lazy devs" in more words than is needed. Wheres his support that developers weren't using SPU's for "early games"? That's all I remember them talking about in Resistance and Heavenly Sword.  Are they using them now? If so why doesn't the PS3 have the best versions of cross platform games yet or do they need more then 4 years to familiarise themselves with the Cell?

"but the 360 will need to decompress textures to be able to run the game smoothly because of the limitations the DVD creates"

Well for a start, the 360 isn't the only platform that decompresses data on the fly, the Wii does, the PS3 does and the high end PC does. Games of today as we know it would not be possible if we could not. I'd also like to know how this is a negative in the 360s performance, virtually every cross platform game seems to look and load quicker on Xbox 360 despite these supposed dvd limitations. If anything the PS3 should copy it.

"and the none mandatory hard drive."

Aside from the spelling mistake, an informed person would never use this term. "Non-mandatory"..pshh. It'd be "non-standard".

"The PS3 has a faster CPU which helps the GPU, and the Cell is one of the rare cases which a processor can be used for graphical calculations"

Hardly rare, the Xenon can also dedicate spare run time to the rendering if it's available.

Aside from that the rest of the content is acceptable in a laymans understanding, aside from it being incredibly short and lacking any detail,  it basically reads like a fans blog with some basic understanding, but a general lack of knowledge as to how things come together.

It could have been summerised as " 360 has a better GPU, PS3 has a better CPU which helps the weaker GPU but devs don't want to do that" since that's what he's trying to get across, but that wouldn't be accurate in the slightest. If anything it's more offensive to the developers.

Sure developing exclusively and nixing split-screen might let you spit out Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2, but they're really no excuse for underperforming RE5, Bayonettas, Dirt 2, MW2, Rage and Crysis 2.

I did you give an example which proves you wrong. It's called Metroid Prime 3, which does about the same as Dead Space does, with bigger environments and better framerate.

There are Wii games which replicate their PS3/360 counterparts. Isn't that what Activision recently did with Modern Warfare, for example?