MikeB said:
@ LordTheNightKnight
I think you didn't understand what you are replying to originally, You aren't proving why I don't understand. You still gave the wrong response to what I typed. IMO people should criticize Microsoft more for their wrong claims (also denying hardware defects we already knew about since launch, revealed to investors when they had to submit their financial report) People DO blame Microsoft for the hardware. instead of Sony (which made an expensive high specced sturdy console, IMO noting wrong with that). That is a lie. There is something wrong with it being expensive, not just for the consumer, but for Sony being forced to sell it at a loss, even now (and the blu-ray diode going down doesn't mitigate that cost, since the diode is just on part of the disc drive). Plus the console it not high speed. One component is, and it's not even the most costly part, (at launch, it cost less to make then the 360's CPU when it launched). Sony pretending the whole console is high speed is a wrong claim, and you supporting it is a wrong claim. Therefore, you and Sony should be criticized for your lies. Apparently you can have a well perfoming game rendering in 1080p on even the XBox 360.
Gran Turismo 5 prologue demo is already available. I forgot. A racing game is not as demanding on a system as a game like MGS4, or CoD4. Even with damage, cars have only so much movement and so many animations. That's why on the PS2, most action games ran at either 30fps with a free camera or 60fps with a fixed camera, but racing games could run at 60fps with a free camera. Metal Gear Solid 4 has been extensively demonstrated in public and there weren't any indications the PS3 wouldn't be competent enough. It has not been extensively demonstrated. That is another lie. We've had some public demos, and trailers. We have not had a chance to look at the final product. It may run as well as Konami claims, but we cannot know right now. There are however clear indications that the XBox 360 will have problems with aiming at higher resolutions for complex games. What indications? You claiming the lower resolution of CoD4 has to be solely the fault of the 360, with no actual evidence? The size of the 360's frame buffer, when you completely ignore that it's not made of conventional RAM?* The fact you are pretending disc size is releated to resolution, when graphics cannot be rendered before they are loaded off ROM data? Or is there somewthing else, that doesn't ignore the rules of computing?
The reasoning PS3 developers give with regard to the PS3 performing much better for the long run are solid and understandable. Again, what reasons? Some just say the blu-ray and Cell are essential. They don't say why, which makes their claims suspect. If a developer said the Wii was essential to their game, due to motion control, but didn't tell us about the gameplay, I would not believe them, as it would sound simply like sucking up. The same with those touting any system over another, without actual reasons to back up the touting. What indications do we have the XBox 360 will perform better in the future? Why aren't they already, is there some sort of huge untapped potential? I don't think so, what would it be? No developer has told us that ANY of the 7th gen systems are at their limit, at least not those who have actually worked on the systems (even the DS). That's a pretty good indication. How to bypass the bottlenecks? You've proven you know little about game design. Developers have ALWAYS dealt with bottlenecks. You yourself acknowleged that the PS3's memory will be overcome, and that is a form of bypassing a bottleneck. Furthermore, the ONLY bottleneck developers have mentioned for the 360 over the PS3 is the disc size and lack of standard HDD. Those are irrelevant to the issue of resolution, as I mentioned those are ROM devices, and frame buffer can only handle graphics after they have been loaded. Developers have NOT called the 360's frame buffer a bottleneck, because they worked on the PS2, which had the SAME KIND of RAM for it's frame buffer.* It was a puny 3MB, but they got some wonderful performance out of it. Now the 360 has 3 times the size, with twenty times the bandwidth. So in terms of resolution, the 360 and PS3 are roughly equal, no matter how much you twist facts. Developers that have claimed the PS3 can do more, have been turning out not to meet their claims. This does not mean the PS3 is weak, just that Sony made just as wrong a claim about the PS3's resolution as that Microsoft VP did. It's neither as strong as the former claims, nor as weak as the latter claims. This type of RAM is Embedded Dynamic RAM, which is worth its speed over its size, or else future iterations of Cell systems would not be planning to use it for main memory, over standard RAM. | 
