Well, that requires power. Some titles will drop v-sync to maintain framerate, others won't. The PS3 version of RE5 doesn't drop v-sync, and so has no screentearing, but has some shifty performance with the framerate taking a hit under heavy load. The 360 version does the opposite and thus has more frametearing, but maintains 30 FPS.

talking about this actually is pissing me off about multiplats and the way it works right now, they can't push the PS3 because the 360 can't push the actual visual quality and PS3 is harder to work with and requires more budget, so then they go with 360 first, then do shitty ass ports, when they should just do PS3 first, get it running correctly, then port it down to the easier to dev 360 and the problem is solved, but they are prolly not gonna do that because it makes too much sense.

99% of all games made for HD consoles look and run worse on PS3.

Last in sales this generation.

$5 billion in the hole

All of it's exclusives visually toppled by Crysis 2 on 360.

If it's not Cell and Blu-Ray and it's not the devs, it's gotta be the worst power cable in history.

@ RAZurrection

When was Crysis 2 released?

MikeB said: @ mibuokami So bottom line is, by sticking with a more traditional architecture for the PS3, consumer would have enjoyed significantly better early ports, eliminate horror story such as Bayonetta Is the port really that bad? I played the demos, the game seemed to run just fine. Either way, it game-wise did not appeal to me at all. I am looking so much more forward to God of War 3. Judging from the videos both versions look rather similar, if the PS3 version is really horrible in comparison, I wonder what any HD console to Wii port would be viewed as.

Generally speaking both version of a game for any review website is given the same score despite some slight disparity, example such as Assassin Creed 2 which suffer more screen tearing and inferior framerate and Street Fighter IV which had no AA in the PS3 version. These are consider minor variable to most people, only a minority will notice the difference.

With Bayonetta however, the difference is staggering. I'll link you to digital foundry which has a critic up about the framerate issue and screen tearing: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bayonetta-demo-showdown-blog-entry

There is also issues with overall graphic performance, slow-down, long and excessive load time etc... it was so bad in fact that IGN gave the 360 version a 9.5 and the PS3 version a 8.2, a massive contrast in score for essentially the same game bogged down with performance issues.

Edit: Also HD to Wii port aren't generally viewed in the same light as there is a clear performance limitation on Nintendo's console. It the same with say... Dragon Age Origin, where everyone expect the PC version to outperform its console cousin because it is expected.

Well I am done playing this game for now. I will end with saying this. As an owner of both the Xbox 360, and the PS3 I know which one has more impressive games. I have spent 1000's of hours on each system over the last 3+ years, and I like them both. However, when you go head to head with games that were built directly for each system PS3 is the clear cut winner, across the board. From my experiance there is only 2 360 titles that match the feel of PS3 games, and thats Gears 1 & 2. Halo, Forza, Fable, Mass Effect, and L4D are not in the same league as Uncharted, Killzone, GT5:P, Ratchet & Clank, and Metal Gear Solid. Not in Gameplay. Not immersivness, and surly not in presentation.

Now back to playing Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bolts.

So often people forget about the past and for example repeat the same old mistakes as made by ST fans during the 80s. Yes, the Amiga was more complex due to being much more advanced at the time (a very advanced multi-processing design). But as the PS3 has great 1st party support I think the PC platform hurts the most from the 360 (many top Microsoft games like Halo 3, Fable 2 and Gears 2 not appearing on PC, hugely sacrificed game design compared to what the PC is really capable of like fewer online multi-player abilities in a game like Modern Warfare 2).

One thing limiting the Amiga 500 technically the most was the lack of storage, compare for instance a top title like Defender of the Crown on the Amiga 500 on diskette vs Defender of the Crown 2 on CD running on A500 level hardware (much better graphics and audio).

Once the ST started to die, most developers really Amiga started to show off the technology. I think likely this will happen again when the PS3 moves past the 360's install base.

I believe the Sony Playstation 3 Computer Entertainment System is a very powerful beast.

Within the next year or two we are going to see games that completely showcase how powerful the system is.

God of War 3 and Heavy Rain being two of them. Uncharted 2 already raised the bar also.

Luckily with technology belief is minimized.  And it's a fact that they could have had the same power in a chip that didn't piss everyone off. 

I own a ps3 and I would be so pissed to program for it.  I linked phrack - oh yeah, most video gamers have an illusion of technical knowledge supported by buzzwords.  The fact is in order execution cores like those in the xbox or ps3 strain developers enough.  Having to further optimize code over 6 processors makes optimization needlessly complex. 

In my comp hardware course years ago a student asked the prof if he should write something in a convoluted manner that saved a little bit of programming time.  The prof immediately told him that he should write it clearly and the compiler would optimize it.  Writing it clearly was much more valuable for the next guy who worked on it and the complier takes care of the minor optimization. 

Turns out this gen of consoles threw out the common assumptions programmers have made for years and placed a larger burden of optimizing command orders on them.  Then Sony further screws developers by making a parallel processor so complicated it's horrific.  I love my ps3 but I would hate programming it.  The reason multiplats suffer is only developer studios that Sony throws money at can afford to waste their time figuring it out.

And they could have just put a faster x86 chip in there instead.  Perhaps more than 512mb of ram (this limitation is why the console versions of oblivion have unarmored horses while it's present on the PC).  Or a better GPU.  And it would have run just as well if not better!  For the price of the launch ps3 you could have built a mid-high end gaming pc that murdered it!

Hey look, exclusive developers sony throws money at make great games.  Those multiplat guys might be able to keep up if they could afford spending extra time and effort on overly complicated development for the cell.  Who would waste their time like that to reach a smaller market than either of the two other consoles?  Sony's arrogance this gen is appalling.

Rather than sniping at him you know you could post a response rather than skirting the side of flaming/trolling.