SCEE UK boss: PS3 will be leading console for multiplatform development |
Ó
For the longest time now, the PlayStation 3 was stuck in an awkward
position. It's the most powerful console on the market (there, I said
it!) but it's also the one with the smallest gamer base (there, I said
that too!).So when it came to making multiplatform games, some (most) devs would just make the Xbox 360 version and just port it to the PS3. After all, they don't really need to max out the game for the PS3's hardware since it's already good enough for the Xbox 360 anyway.
SCEE UK's Ray Maguire suggests this may not be the case for long though.
He suggests that the PS3's base is now large enough that instead of devs choosing to make games for the Xbox 360 first then just port it over, they now have the option of doing the opposite:
I think we now have an install base which is big enough for any third party to want to develop for. Now the decision making part of development is which do you lead your development on?
Is it easier to lead with the most powerful, both in terms of AI and graphics, i.e. PS3 and then just remove part of the functionality for the processors that aren't quite as strong? I would imagine that's very much part of the thought process now from a studio development point of view.
"...For the processors that aren't quite strong." Yeah, sneaky little poke at Microsoft there.
Related Articles:
- Gearbox: multiplatform development caused Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway delays
- Final Fantasy XIII scans: no delay, 360 development won't start until PS3 version is done, more
Via VideoGamer
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
"It's the most powerful console on the market"
*waits for the army of 12 year old console experts to tell you how wrong you are*
I\'m shivering in my boots lol
The only reason 12 year olds would disagree that ps3 is more powerful than the other consoles is because they can only aford a 360. Their bias against the other consoles is kind of expected.
Musev, are you saying your a 12 year old? Or can you accept the facts. Maybe put a couple of hours at 7/11 or mcdonalds, or where ever you work, and maybe you to can be part of the sony fan base.
even the lead developer of Gears of War 2 admitted that GeOW2 already reached the 360's limits. meaning, you can't go further in terms of graphics, and multitasking. unless of course they break it into 2 DVD's.
in regards to that, i can't wait to see that Dual-layered Bluray disc which packs in a whopping 200GB of data in the near future. heck, the 360 doesn't even use HD-dvd's. wtf. that's why the video games right now are crappy when they can just make awesome games with alot of content without even compressing the data.
my point is, the 360 is holding the ps3 back. if not for devs who only wish to make more profits (since there are more 360 owners in the US), then we would have games as awesome as MGS4, etc. too bad i live in Canada. if only this is Japan where there are more Wii's and PS3's. sigh. i don't care what people say. Need for Speed series is stupid. go play Japanese games like Wangan Midnight or Gran Turismo.
wtf..... you made my brain hurt
where did u get that the lead developer admitted that making GOW2 reached 360's limits? and isn't the 360 disc drive equivalent to HD-DvD
You said "even the lead developer of Gears of War 2 admitted that GeOW2 already reached the 360's limits."
Actually, he didn't. That's a distortion of what was actually said and who said it (not blaimng you, but it's typical of the internet my friend).
Firstly, it was the producer, not the lead developer, and secondly, he didn't say the limit had been reached, but that he thinks they're approaching it. This is what he said;
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18914
"So I think we're certainly approaching the upper end of it, as far as what developers are able to do with it, but just looking at all the demos we saw today -- ours and others -- it's clear that all the games just keep improving, and keep pushing that bar"
But let's not ignore the fact that being the producer, he also says;
"I mean, I'M NOT THE TECHNICAL GUY... all I know is that with the two to three more years of optimization that we've had, we're much further along than I think, three years ago, we thought we were going to get."
What's clear is that Epic are recognising that they're reaching the limits of their multi-format engine on the consoles, a engine which offers equal great results on the PS3 and the 360. To push the consoles further requires very talented and resourceful devs who can create and optimise a game engine specifically for ONE console (Sony historically have more of such devs). Hence no matter how much Epic get out of UE3 on the 360 and PS3, those results can be bettered by a game engine built from the ground up for either consoles.
He also adds the following comment;
"There will be games in development that won't ship until 2010, and I'm sure they'll look killer, just because, again, they'll have more time with it, and learn from mistakes and optimizations of others. So, I don't know; I think we're getting up there, but I still think there's room to grow."
Lastly, you said "the 360 is holding the ps3 back"
Sorry, but it's not, it really isn't. You're using the same logic that certain PC gamers have used for years to claim that consoles are holding the PC back and causing devs to dumb down games. :|
"where did u get that the lead developer admitted that making GOW2 reached 360's limits?"
See my answer below (sorry, posted it in the wrong place)
"and isn't the 360 disc drive equivalent to HD-DvD"
No, it's a DVD drive. It's faster than the PS3's Blu-ray drive, but Blu-ray can hold up to 7 times more data per disc.
wow, a desperate attempt at defending the 360
I think, I think xbox is better...............I think, I think the producer said it...............I think consoles are holding back PC games.......Don't forget a decent PC cost you 2 to 3 grands and you have to upgarde it every 2 to 4 years.......With that kind of money people can actually buy a car
Lazy devs make games to fit on a DVD9 then release the same code on a Blu-ray disc for the ps3. Games should be optimized for the platform that it's released on. Just because something's good enough for the 360, doesn't mean it can't be better on the PS3, or vice versa for that matter. Is Namco going to go all out with Tekken 6 for the PS3 version? Are they going to use all that extra space of a single or even a dual layer Blu-ray disc? I guess we'll find out.
yea, he thinks they're approaching it. while most devs think they have yet to untap the ps3's potential.
and again. i concur. i would never compare a pc to any console, since they're different. to get an awesome game on the pc, you need a kick-ass alienware desktop which costs you THOUSANDS of dollars. so i understand if devs don't want to make a game that will abuse Nvidia 8800 SLI technology with 8 gigs of ram, tri- or quad-core processors. it's just not practical.
don't ge tme wrong. i have an alienware desktop that cost me alot of money, but i got it cause i lvoe to multitask i.e. burning a cd while downloading stuff while calculating stuff for my economics major. but i can't do those using a console.
so let's just narrow it down to consoles. if devs used the bluray format instead of a standard dvd, we'll get better graphics, better animations, longer levels, or in short, more data being processed.
Where did I say the 360 was better? No really, where is it?
So instead of just seeing what you want to see, try responding to the points I raised about the 360 instead.
I'm not here to argue for the sake of it, but I'd have more respect for you if show you can put forward a good argument. :|
Regarding PCs, explain how consoles are holding the PC back, don't just say it. The cost of a PC is irrelevent btw.
"yea, he thinks they're approaching it. while most devs think they have yet to untap the ps3's potential."
ALL devs thinks there's untapped potential in BOTH consoles. No console reaches it's full potential before the end of it's natural lifespan since devs can always find ways to push the same hardware further.
Regarding PCs, like houaruto you make a point which is general to the PC and has nothing to do with consoles holding PCs back. If consoles didn't exist, the issues both of you mention would still exist for PC gaming! Hence it has nothing to do with consoles.
The same applies to the PS3. THe 360 is no more holding it back than the PS2 and GC last gen held the XBox back. Last gen, the XBox version of multi-format games were consistantly the best because the XBox was sufficiently more powerful than the other two for it to make a difference.
This gen, whilst the PS3 is more powerful, it is only slightly more powerful, hence not enough to make a difference in multi-format games, and often coming off worse (for reasons we are all aware of).
"if devs used the bluray format instead of a standard dvd, we'll get better graphics, better animations, longer levels, or in short, more data being processed."
*Sigh* you fall into the same trap as many others.
So tell me, when we have a multi-format game on PC, 360 AND PS3, why is it that the PC version has the best graphics and the PS3 version is no better than the 360? Why can't the PS3 version use the textures of the PC version, even though the PC don't use Blu-ray for games?
The reason is the graphics depends FAR MORE on the POWER of the GPU (and to some extent the CPU) and the amount of RAM available, not the amount of disk storage available. Add a more powerful graphics card with more RAM to your PC allows for better graphics, not more space on your HDD.
Disk storage ONLY becomes an issue for games if devs had to compress data to fit, and compressed it enough to be noticeable in the game. Overall, this is not the case, even on the 360 where they are forced to use multiple discs in such cases.
Blu-ray means more space PER disc. Hence it does not mean better graphics (as you can see with ALL multi-format games), and it does not mean better animations. In general, it does not mean longer levels, expect for the few examples where the level is streamed constantly from the disc and therefore multiple discs would be impractical.
So yes, there's the 'potential' for longer levels in certain types of games, but MOST games are structured in such a way that this is not an issue.
Blu-ray's extra storage also makes it practical to use high quality audio for cutscenes (both realtime and movies), however like graphics, in game sound effects are limited by the processing power and RAM available.
"or in short, more data being processed."
No, more data is available per disc compared to DVD, but that data has to be processed by the CPU and GPU, and therefore having more space on the disc doesn't change the processing power of the console.
Last gen, adding a Blu-ray drive to the PS2 (if it existed back then) would not have meant better graphics, better animations, and longer levels in PS2 games. And if tomorrow a 200GB Blu-ray disc became available for PS3 games, that wouldn't suddenly give PS3 games better graphics and animations etc.
i think this should have happend from the beginning because most of ps3's games are on 360 now even exclusives so they should be makin there original consoles like devil may cry 4 could have been a longer game but isnt a blue ray disc holds 25 gb a dl-dvd onli holds 8gb and now the blu-ray can jump 2 50gb when ever its needed like.... i think it was saying resistance 2 is supppose 2 b a dl-bluray which was posted recently and yea why in the world did 360 not have hd-dvd lmao i swore they used that till i checked this year and it said it was a regular dvd styl onli diff is that its a dual layer lmfao and thats y most games are so short, look at metal gears length, graphics and over an hour of cut-scenes witch is practicly a movie and that game came out no problem and remember how they said it was impossible 2 jus port the game even if they wanted 2 because it was make 2 onli b on ps3 to say that in short it ment the games size is extremely to high to try cut they game size and resistance 2 is suppose 2 have 2 diff stories and ones for co-op and next is single player which single player is longer but co-ops is 14-20 hours and white knight chronicles is suppose to be over 50 hours and it has a second story for online multiplayer... see what the playstation 3 can do without being held back by these ports lol
the 360 sucks all they care about is money why don't people just through them in the garbage already i sick of hearing about this piece of trash
@ fartist
Lol, you idiot.
lol fanboyism makes me laugh...
you really think there's still ALOT of potential for the 360 left as a standalone console? please. GeOW2 has already used 95-97% of the 360's graphical prowess. you even experience slowdowns in that game during massive explosions. if you even compare the GTA 4 of ps3 and the 360, you experiece slowdowns on the 360 when 4 or more simultaneous explosions occur. so don't go on saying that the 360 still has untapped potential like the ps3 cause it's not the case. unless of course, Microsoft would totally change all the 360's parts, and add in an HD-DVD drive, well maybe. but that's not potential. that's upgrading.
"*Sigh* you fall into the same trap as many others."
what i said is just one of the examples of which the ps3 is better than the 360 and why it is holding it back.
yes, and i know that GPU, RAM, and CPU are the main harbingers (that's deep, btw) of kick-ass performance. so let me break it down for you in the performance department:
1. the 360 has a main IBM processor + 3 cores all at 3.2 GHz
the ps3 has the main Cell processor + 7 SPE's (or SPU + MFC if you wanna get technical) all running at 3.2 GHZ
2. 360 has 1MB of L2 Cache
ps3 has 2.256MB of L2 Cache
while the ps3 uses Cell instead of the 360's or PC's GPU, then there's more reason for the 360 to have a larger L2 cache that the ps3, since GPU's tend to store texture data in the its L2 cache then distributing it to its cores. while the Cell allows programs to "break down" the tasks DIRECTLY to its SPE's.
3. the 360 has an ATI processor for GPU at 500Mhz.
the ps3 has a Nvidia process for GPU at 550Mhz.
it is true that both consoles' GPU's are even. the GPU is measured in MSOPS (million shader operations per second) and the ps3 has a slight edge (100MSOPS vs the 360's 96MSOPS) but since the 360 uses a unified pipeline in it's GPU then it evens it out.
and this is where the Cell comes into play.
4. the 360 kicks in at 1 Teraflop
FLOP + Floating Point Operations Per Second (or in short, the measure of the computing power)
ps3 kicks at 2 Teraflops.
the ps3 can (in average time) compute instructions twice faster that the 360.
and as i add my previous argument with a 54GB blu-ray disc, then can i say now that the 360 is holding back the ps3?
"GeOW2 has already used 95-97% of the 360's graphical prowess."
Please use actually facts instead of producing made up figures. :)
So tell me, what about Unreal Tournament 3 on the PS3, PC and 360? Remember that game from Epic? It was released on the PS3 and PC FIRST and runs on the same game engine as GeOW2 (Unreal Engine 3).
The 360 version doesn't have mod support and was released many months AFTER the PS3 version, so you can't use the excuse that the 360 held it back! And yet, depite all of this, the 360 version still looks and runs just as well as the PS3 version! So why is the PS3 version not running at a higher framerate than the 360 version? Why is the PS3 version not running at a higher resolution if it's all as simple as you seem to think? The answer is, because that's as good as the PS3 can run the UT3 with Epics's multi-format game engine, Unreal Engine 3 (UE3). The same for the 360!
So could the PS3 run GeOW2 as well as the 360? Yes of course it can. But can the PS3 run GeOW2 better than the 360? No it can't, fact, just as it couldn't run UT3 better than the 360 (and other multi-format games in general), because as good as the game engine is, UE3 was not built from the ground up for either console.
Therefore to claim GeOW2 reaches the 360's limit, when the PS3 itself couldn't run UE3 games better than the 360, is just nonsense.
"you even experience slowdowns in that game during massive explosions. if you even compare the
"...GTA 4 of ps3 and the 360, you experiece slowdowns on the 360 when 4 or more simultaneous explosions occur."
The performance of GTA4 on the PS3 and 360 is the SAME! You get the SAME slow downs in BOTH versions.
Numerous 'established' websites have done comparisons between the 360 and PS3 version of GTA4 and found they were more or less identical (as confirmed by practically ALL the reviews);
Here's one from Eurogamer;
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id+137829
Here's the page with the frame rates of both versions (measured more accurately than anywhere else on the internet);
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id+137829+page+4
If anything, the 360 demonstrates the slightly better framerate overall, and all at a higher resolution than the PS3 version (whilst the PS3 version has a softer look which some gamers prefer).
Videogamer.com had a GTA4 explosion comparison movie of both versions where they set it up so that each was EXACTLY the same for explosions (unlike other sites who chose
different times and/or conditions on both consoles). In that video, it was clear that there's no difference between both versions for explosions.
Videogamer seems to be down at the moment, so I'll have to get the link later (if it's the right website I'm thinking of that is :)).
"so don't go on saying that the 360 still has untapped potential like the ps3 cause it's not the case."
Actually it IS the case, you simply don't understand it (sorry, but it's true). And if you're going to use a game like GTA4 as an example of the 360 reaching it's limit, then the same applies to the PS3, since the PS3 performs that game the same as the 360. So your logic falls apart there.
Therefore please don't use games like GTA 4 to back up false assumptions.
"what i said is just one of the examples of which the ps3 is better than the 360 and why it is holding it back.....Blah blah blah....
...
4. the 360 kicks in at 1 Teraflop
FLOP + Floating Point Operations Per Second (or in short, the measure of the computing power) ps3 kicks at 2 Teraflops."
*Sigh*, again you've just proved my point that you don't really know what you're talking about here.
The Teraflop arguement is NOT a valid comparison. Never has been, never will be. No-one who knows about hardware uses this to compare consoles.
Here's how it breaks down. Back in 2005 (E3), MS suggested the 360 will offer 1 TFLOP
performance, where the CPU offered 115 GFLOPS (which is 0.115 TFLOPS). Sony suggested the PS3 will offer 2 TFLOPS performance,
*Sigh*, again you've just proved my point that you don't really know what you're talking about here.
The Teraflop arguement is NOT a valid comparison. Never has been, never will be. No-one who knows about hardware uses this to compare consoles.
Here's how it breaks down. Back in 2005 (E3), MS suggested the 360 will offer 1 TFLOP performance, where the CPU offered 115 FLOPS (which is 0.115 TFLOPS). Sony suggested the PS3 will offer 2 TFLOPS performance, where the CPU (Cell) offered 218 GFLOPS (which is 0.218 TFLOPS).
Hence according to MS and Sony at the time, it breaks down like this;
360: CPU (0.115 TFLOPS) + GPU (0.885 TFLOPS)
PS3: CPU (0.218 TFLOPS) + GPU (1.782 TFLOPS)
Can you not see the problem with those figures? According to those figures, the PS3's GPU (RSX) is twice as powerful as the 360's GPU (Xenos). Now you KNOW that's not correct!
'So why are the TFLOPS so wrong?', I here you ask... well, because the TFLOP figures for GPUs are only guestimates given by GPU companies, depending on how optimistic they choose to be, then it's never going to be an accurate measure. Therefore it's a meaningless figure for GPUs, and hence it is never used to compare GPUs.
So please drop the '1 TFLOP vs 2 TFLOP' argument, because it's old, wrong, and most people have moved on by now.
What we DO know is that the GPUs (RSX and Xenon) are practically the same (devs agree with this). What we can get from the figures is that on paper, Cell can offer twice the floating-point performance of the 360's CPU (Xenon).
However, with 3 cores for running main code compared to one in Cell, the 360's CPU offers about twice the performance for running non-arithmetic code compared to Cell (not 3 times as some may assume here).
So in most cases, it balances out. For some games (especially those pushing the computational limits of the CPU), Cell on the PS3 should have the advantage. For games where much of the CPU processing is non-arithmetic, Xenon on the 360 has an advantage. For many games, it works out about even overall.
"the ps3 can (in average time) compute instructions twice faster that the 360."
The PS3 can potentially compute arithmetic operations twice as fast as the 360, the 360 can potentially run game code twice as fast as the PS3, the 360 and PS3 execute graphical operations with similar performance in their GPUs. It's all about pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, strengths and weaknesses etc.
"and as i add my previous argument with a 54GB blu-ray disc, then can i say now that the 360 is holding back the ps3?"
50GB disc, and as I've shown, there's far more to it than you appear to believe, so no, the 360 is NOT holding the PS3 back, just as neither the 360 nor the PS3 are holding the PC back.
I'm not here to support the 360 for the sake of it. The PS3 is *slightly* more powerful overall, and I consider both the 360 and PS3 to be equally fabulous consoles, but gamers like yourself have an exaggerated view of the power difference between both consoles and a false perspective on how devs have and will push the hardware.
"...where the CPU offered 115 FLOPS..."
That should be GFLOPS, and I'm sure there are many more little typos in my post. :)
But to summarise roddollente, nothing you've said is based around facts, it's all based around assumptions, assumptions which are wrong. But hey, as long as you enjoy gaing, and devs provide the games you and I want to play, that's all that counts in the end.
I'm done here, if I do reply here, I promise to try to keep it short. ;)
For the above links, change the 'plus' characters for the 'equals' characters in the links to make them work (QJ automatically changes those characters when posted).
Unreal Tournament 3? it is a PORT. so why does it have framerate issues? BECAUSE IT IS A PORT, LIKE ANY OTHER MULTIPLATFORM GAMES. please don't use games that don't even utilize the ps3's prowess.
about the GeOW2, i was talking about EXCLUSIVES. i doubt you ever played a ps3, but i have one and HAD a 360. i actually HAD SIX 360's. because those can't handle long hours of gaming, they all broke down. what a bummer. now, i know that you haven't played a ps3 game since you're a fanboy (haha), but were there any complains about slowdowns on major ps3 exclusives like LittleBigPlanet , Resistance 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc.? NONE. i played the Resistance 2 beta online and there were 60 players in one game and we didn't experience ANY SLOWDOWNS AT ALL during the game. so please play your Fable 2 and GeOW2 and come back here if you didn't experience any slowdowns at all. period.
also, the 360 and PC ARE VERY IDENTICAL (microsoft, anyone?). the 360 is easy to program with, unlike the ps3. but to me, that is just an excuse of LAZY-ASS DEVS. you base games for the ps3 that are just f'cking ports made by lazy developers.
"However, with 3 cores for running main code compared to one in Cell, the 360's CPU offers about twice the performance for running non-arithmetic code compared to Cell (not 3 times as some may assume here)."
The main codes run on the Cell processor + 7 SPE's, not just one. please read my post.
also, the PS3 is superior hardware-wise to the 360. you didn't even refute to the L2 cache and the Cell processor. so even if you consider the Teraflop argument to be invalid, i sill win by 5 points: Cpu, Cache size,, GPU, Media format, and Potential. 'nuff said.
i disagree with most game developers today. i believe that to make a great MULTIPLATFORM GAME, devs must work from the top to the bottom. so pack in alot of stuff in the ps3 versions and abuse the blu ray + ps3's prowess and, they can just remove the functionalities that the 360 can't support. that's how you make a good game for all consoles. since games would use the full potential of all consoles. also, i hope companies would have a separate 360 and ps3 division, which would remove that PORTING practice of lazy-ass devs. i'm just so tired of ports. seriously. we all know that the ps3 is superior to the 360, that MGS4 isn't even possible to run on the 360. yea, you said the ps3 can run GeOW, but come back here if you can say that the 360 can run MGS4. 'nuff said.
Just listen to yourself...you said "Unreal Tournament 3? it is a PORT. so why does it have framerate issues? BECAUSE IT IS A PORT, LIKE ANY OTHER MULTIPLATFORM GAMES. please don't use games that don't even utilize the ps3's prowess."
Now that has to be your dumbest comment so far. How is UT3 a port? Do you even know what a port is? Obviously not. Epic focused on the PS3 version FIRST, so the PS3 version is NOT a port, but it is a game running on a multi-format engine as I've explained already.
The point is, and one you deliberately ignore, is that if the PS3 was as powerful as you claim, then the PS3 version of console multi-format games should be the BEST version, just as it was with the XBox last gen and the Playstation the gen before! Instead, it's exactly the same as the 360, often slightly worse.
"about the GeOW2, i was talking about EXCLUSIVES."
This was about your claim that the 360 was holding the PS3 back. Exclusives have nothing to do with it. So stop clutching at straws.
"i doubt you ever played a ps3, but i have one and HAD a 360."
I HAVE both consoles, and enjoy both. Unlike yourself.
"i actually HAD SIX 360's. because those can't handle long hours of gaming, they all broke down. what a bummer."
Oh sure, we ALL believe you. So now that your arguments fall apart, you resort to trying to distractions, using typical tactics of fanboy accusations, claims of owning several 360s, claims that PS3 problems are due to lazy devs, claims that the 360 is just a PC, and other means usual used by PS3 fanboys. Interesting.
"The main codes run on the Cell processor + 7 SPE's, not just one. please read my post."
The Cell processor is ONE processor, with ONE main core for running main code (PPE), and 6 ACTIVE cores (SPEs) for arithmetic operations. The 7th SPE is reserved for the operating system.
The 360's CPU has 3 identical cores. Each core has a PPE for running main code and a unit for arithmetic operations (VMX128, equivalent in power to one SPE). So that's 3 PPEs and 3 arithmetic units in Xenon.
"also, the PS3 is superior hardware-wise to the 360. you didn't even refute to the L2 cache and the Cell processor."
L2 cache is irrelevent. It's use and size is relevent to the needs of the processor, and therefore varies from one processor to the next.
"so even if you consider the Teraflop argument to be invalid, i sill win by 5 points: Cpu, Cache size,, GPU, Media format, and Potential. 'nuff said."
LOL! Proving yet again you are clueless about technology.
"i disagree with most game developers today. i believe that to make a great MULTIPLATFORM GAME, devs must work from the top to the bottom...."
Says the clueless gamer online. Gee, I'm sure devs can learn a lot from you. ;)
"but come back here if you can say that the 360 can run MGS4."
Actually, it can. Nuff said. ;)
So I'll get back to playing games on my PS3 and 360 without the naivity and dillusions that you show with every post you've made here. But thanks for the laugh, I needed it. ;)
BTW, I'm still waiting on your answer of HOW consoles are holding the PC back.
In fact, after the US results, this day is too great to continue wasting it on the likes of you. Good day. :)
i'm a big ps3 fan, not a fanboy cause i think the 360 is good but i still prefer ps3, but it's obvious you're a 100% ps3 fanboy out to prove something without making any sense.
you are not even consistant. one minute you say "it is true that both consoles' GPU's are even", then in your next post you said the GPU is one of the points where the ps3 beats the 360. wtf? that proves your arguing for the sake of it. i mean, i had to laugh at you talking about tflops cause thats been debunked years ago.
as much as i hate to admit it, i agree with jez, cause to me he's the one making good points and the one trying to be fair to both consoles. he seems to know what he's talking about, but you dont roddoll. nuff said (hehehe)
oh yeah and jez, i like your posts, you make good points and know your stuff but man, please make your posts shorter, they're waaaaaaay too long mate. hehehe