Your hear to hate and nothing more. Have you stated anything as your opinion? You've been posting as what you say goes. Nice name by the way. Herod eh...name of the king who was afraid of a special baby so he had all infants killed. What are you afraid of with PS3?herod said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PS3 games list & SPE usages
- Thread starter MikeB
- Start date
i hate bees
Member
Tormentoso said:
That entire post was really, really cringe worthy.
Mr.Potato Head
Banned
SolidSnakex said:
Also you really gotta consider the raw talent of the various development studios.. Bungie and the Halo series never really were cutting edge with its graphics in Halo games.. they were good but there were always better looking games on the xbox systems when ever a new halo game came out...Halo3..when it came out had excellent lighting and stuff like that but when it came out..there were other games that looked better... GOW for one. Sony is fortunate to have alot of their development studios with very good development talent with graphics so they usually seem to do more with what ever hardware is sitting on their plate.. more so then what MS has under their belt imho
Also to those that are trying to say the PS3 is superior graphically to the 360 just by the KZ2 is just down right wrong, talk about tryign to jump on any oppurtunity to rise above another system....come on now, be a REAL fan of videogames, not some stupid fanboy of a particular system..both consoles have their strengths in graphics in their own ways depending on the developer as well.. im behind KZ2 but none of us know what a KZ2 would look like on a 360 ..for all we know, a KZ2 game may look better on 360 if the tables where turned around..we dont know and really who cares...
... i think ALOT of you guys are avoiding the REAL question for what ever reason why and that REAL question is... can a console developed game from ground up (Killzone 2) in this case....can it look more visually impressive then PC's best looking game to date (crysis) in this case?... and the short answer is.... YES! KZ2 is living proof!
And if any PC fanboy wants to step up to the plate.. go for it
but before you do.. make sure you go play the Kill Zone 2 beta first... heheherod said:
conitnue to be what exactly? Again, this is not sales age thread.
This thread was started because 2 years ago, not many 1st party, let alone 3rd part developers used SPU's... this has changed quite a bit now and many 3rd party games use SPUs.
Not only that, 2-3 years from now, developers will thank Sony for having to learn how to code efficiently for multicore as all of the future gpus will contain many cores (such as Larabee and roumored 32 processors).
Dear Sony,
Give codes or whatever to ppl for allowing them to make network rendering on 3d applications
Buy some major 3d software developers (like Discreet and implement ps3s for network rendering)
Open up a portal like Folding at home for 3d artists and 3d industry where ppl can use networked ps3s for rendering their projects and movies
Charge for this service
??
Profit.
Give codes or whatever to ppl for allowing them to make network rendering on 3d applications
Buy some major 3d software developers (like Discreet and implement ps3s for network rendering)
Open up a portal like Folding at home for 3d artists and 3d industry where ppl can use networked ps3s for rendering their projects and movies
Charge for this service
??
Profit.
DCharlie said:
Usernet:
Internet discussions from 1985/1986, Is there something to be learned here?
"I hate to dampen the Amiga fire, but the Amiga is a doomed machine.
How can I say this before 1 Amiga is sold? Simple, this is history
repeating it self, all over again. Remember the Comodore C-64 and
the Atari 800? It was obvious to anybody, who seriously looked at
BOTH machines, that the 800 was a better computer. But the Atari
cost twice as much. Guess which one, really sold. Want more proof?
Looked what happened last December, Atari sells 1/2 million 800XLs
at 89.95 while C-64 sales down 90%, and most people thought C-64
sales down due to "soft market", how come Atari sold 1/2 million,
price/performance. Enough history here is today"
"the"Amiga does not come close to the true power and useful capabilities of the ST.Inside the ST, you will find MORE custom IC's than the Amiga and MORE powerful chips 'off the shelf' than the Amiga. This adds up to a real optimized, fast and versatile computer. The memory controller prefetches 16-bit data directly for the 68000 and also places
screen data onto a separate bus for the screen refresh chip. This
operation only steals 8-18% of the available true CPU time.
As a programmer, I found the 520ST documentation to be
very well written and complete. And, if something was unclear, Atari was
very open and very helpful."
"I haven't done a market survey, but at the local high volume retailer,
(Bit Bucket, Newton MA,) the Amigas are stacked up to the ceiling, and
they don't have an inventory of STs. (They report that the STs sell as
fast as they come in, the Amiga business is slow and steady.) They
also say that lack of Amiga software while the ST software is quite
impressive, has had a severe impact on Amiga sales. "
"So far, the main differences appear to be:
(a) the ST is half the price of the AMIGA.
(b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the
ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed. "
"I would still like to know why the Amiga even with a 68020 and fast memory
still is *significantly* slower than the ST. Is their a hardware type out their
who can look at the memory cycles and see why the current claims of "no cpu
slowing due to graphics chips" seems to not be proved by the real world."
"After reading a lot of articles about this years Comdex it is
becoming more obvious that Atari has already won in the ST vs.
Amiga wars."
"seems that the ST is very close technically and indeed for a lot of people better technically and at less than half the cost."
"This could be reasonably intelligent behavior if you aren't looking for some
extraas that the Amiga has. I do not believe the majority of people really
care about amimation and fancy built-in sound, or Bus-oriented expandability. "
"On a REALLY PURE technological level, the Amiga and the ST are the same computer.
Think about it. On an OS level, superiority is debatable and based on
opinion."
"I feel a sense of jealousy here. It seems that people here have to justify
why they believe the Amiga is a better machine, because they can't
believe that a machine like the 520ST exists. "
I don't think that it is fair to compare Killzone2, a game that has been in development for years with any 360 or PS3 game for that matter. Give a Gears of War or Resistance game that much time in development and you will see games that look just as good or not better than Killzone2.
Keep in mind that Resistance and Gears have had two games released already and Killzone 2 isn't even here yet. There isn't much time to improve your game engine when you are releasing games every two years. Also throw in the split screen element that taxes the gpu's and cpu's of the PS3 and 360 where as Killzone is a single screen experience. You have to do more coding for a split screen experience and the A.I. in games has to be coded different and the gpu has to keep up with the fact that you won't be seeing the same think onscreen at the same time. I doubt that Killzone 2 would have looked as good if there was split screen added because that would have meant an even longer time in development.Not saying that Killzone doesn't look great(easily the best looking game on any console) but it took a lot of hard work to get it to where it is.
Yes Killzone 2 looks great but that does that mean that other games couldn't have been designed to look better? Uncharted,MGS4,and killzone are all single screen games and the 360 really has no single screen games to compare to ps3 exclusives.I'm not convinced that any game this gen can't be done on any console except for the Wii.
But it is nice to see how Guerilla uses the the spe's like no other developer before them. Cell is the answer to no installs.February can't get here soon enough.
Keep in mind that Resistance and Gears have had two games released already and Killzone 2 isn't even here yet. There isn't much time to improve your game engine when you are releasing games every two years. Also throw in the split screen element that taxes the gpu's and cpu's of the PS3 and 360 where as Killzone is a single screen experience. You have to do more coding for a split screen experience and the A.I. in games has to be coded different and the gpu has to keep up with the fact that you won't be seeing the same think onscreen at the same time. I doubt that Killzone 2 would have looked as good if there was split screen added because that would have meant an even longer time in development.Not saying that Killzone doesn't look great(easily the best looking game on any console) but it took a lot of hard work to get it to where it is.
Yes Killzone 2 looks great but that does that mean that other games couldn't have been designed to look better? Uncharted,MGS4,and killzone are all single screen games and the 360 really has no single screen games to compare to ps3 exclusives.I'm not convinced that any game this gen can't be done on any console except for the Wii.
But it is nice to see how Guerilla uses the the spe's like no other developer before them. Cell is the answer to no installs.February can't get here soon enough.
ok i am not a fanboy are anything and i really think that gears looks extremely good and i also know, that a lot of games looks better on the 360 yet. Bit I must admit i started to play uncharted yesterday (once again) and Even if I already played the game twice i was so mind blowend by its visuals. I took a lot of time to check all the small details and i cannot say how much impressed i am by the visuals of uncharted.
People said the new Tomb Raider would look better then Uncharted but it even doesn't come close to that game. Just wanted to give my two cent to the discussion.
People said the new Tomb Raider would look better then Uncharted but it even doesn't come close to that game. Just wanted to give my two cent to the discussion.
just tray said:
Agreed.
I really don't appreciate how all the KZ2 nuts compare and contrast, as well as tear down games that came before KZ2... probably in attempt to build even more hype and to place KZ2 on their FPS-worshiping shrine as the next "big thing."
I will most likely love KZ2 when it launches, but that doesn't mean that its predecessors aren't also great, fun games too.
It will be interesting to see how future games take more advantage of PS3's processing abilities, as they get more familiar with its architecture. It takes an ever-increasing amount of patience, funding (monetary and time-wise), and talent in order for a development studio to achieve true AAA status these days.
carlosp said:
Yeah, Uncharted is a classic already and it's only been out for a year. The animations, lighting, shadows, high-res details, sound, etc. are extremely well-done.
When I saw the new Indiana Jones in the theaters, I kept thinking that it was such a disappointment and that Uncharted should have been the blueprint in which that movie should have been based off of, lol. Uncharted had that high of a production quality to me.
Can't wait to play Uncharted 2...
Click said:
Haha i wished so often i never watched the new Indi and thought how great a good Uncharted Movie would be.
Since i just got my new Home Cinema System I played Uncharted for the first time with Dolby Pro Logic and oh shit what a soundtrack
Sometimes i really felt i am feeling the cool breeze on my skin. Uncharted has the best soundtrack for a PS3 game so far and is one of my favorite (right after God of War 2).just tray said:
I think you are talking about something else namely polished assets, this is mostly the job for graphics and audio experts, rather than the programmers. The programmers will continue to develop their game engine, no matter how many games are being released.
For example for Resistance 2 the assets in general (albeit very good) aren't as polished as Gears 2 in many people's opinion (Insomniac has fewer resources and are releasing a new triple A game every year), but technically Resistance 2 is far more impressive with up to 60 online multi-players without lag, while Gears 2 even lags with its much smaller environment 10 player online battles.
Both Gears 2 and Resistance 2 are linear shooter games, but Resistance 2 includes far bigger environments to move around in with more activity going on in then. For the Gears of War games, the invisible walls are far more narrow allowing the artists to better optimise for what the player is able to see through these invisible walls (also it's easier to pre-script events). Also Resistance 2's bosses are technically more impressive if you perform polygon counts and such.
It's as comparing the audio, Resistance 2 has 7.1 lossless audio which is technically better than what Gears 2 provides, which audio sounds better comes down to personal preferences as the sounds aren't the same with one being in better technical quality than the other like is for example the case with a multi-platform game like DiRT.
Killzone 2 will have a technically more impressive game engine as well as better polished assets.
The 360 had a 1 year headstart (more time for devs to explore the hardware and adapt) and is generally easier to develop for if coming from a Direct X background, with Gears 2 it has reached its peak (or very near to it as no game will ever be optimised down to every little line of code). Launch games already tapped up to 85% of available Xenon cycles from all 3 cores. It's not that the 360 exclusive Halo devs with their huge budget and long development time were incompetent (640p lacking AA, not a solid frame rate throughout the game), they bumped into technical limitations of the 360 hardware.
With regard to the PS3:
PSU: "It's incredible to see huge levels and see the deferred rendering and note that on all the SPUs, even on the heaviest load were coming up to about 60%," Haynes said. "They weren't coming close to maxing out. .They had about 40% of space before they started tripping or saw slow down on some of the processes."
PS3 exclusive Genji 2 - 0% max SPU usage.
PS3 exclusive Resistance: Fall of Man ~16% max SPU usage.
PS3 exclusive Uncharted: Drake's Fortune ~30% SPU usage
PS3 exclusive Killzone 2 (current build) max ~60% SPU usage per SPU (average will be lower)
Further game engine optimisations can bring down the 60% SPU load figure considerably (like extensive optimisations which also allowed for Gears 2 to be a step up). So potentially there should be even more headroom to do additional stuff.
herod said:
No they won't. A system is judged by what it can do and if Sony (or anyone else) can set the benchmark, then that's that. The notion that exclusive games shouldn't count and that multiplatform games (which are inherently designed to run as equal experiences) and are typically no more than 1% different from SKU to SKU should be the defining criteria to decide which console is more powerful is ridiculous. Especially when you consider that sometimes the multiplat games look/perform better on the PS3, and that one console will almost always be favored over the other through the course of development.
Most games last-generation on the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube were exactly the same way, but you know what, when we saw Chronicles of Riddick on the Xbox (among others) -- we had a good idea that technically a lot of those things weren't possible on the PS2 or Gamecube. And it showed that much more than any slight upgrade or downgrade from a multiplatform game ever could. What definitively proved the Xbox was more powerful than the PS2 were its exclusives.
herod said:
First of all, Killzone actually has a finite amount of time and money. It's actually a tangible product in a few months too, and contrary to popular belief, it really hasn't been delayed much if at all. This stuff is better said about Duke Nukem Forever or Too Human where it can actually apply. Those are games that have gone through amazing amounts of dev time.
There are exclusive games that have or will have taken longer to develop on the 360. Alan Wake comes to mind. Halo Wars has been in development for awhile now, too.
Killzone 2 might have a big budget, sure. But so do lots of other games. Lair had one. I'm sure most of Sony's and Microsoft's first party titles have hefty budgets. Midway's Stranglehold had one. And I'm confident Halo 3's budget was well into the stratosphere. Bungie had all they tools at their disposal.
So look, I guess you can make the argument that Microsoft's exclusive titles don't match up to the PS3's for lack of trying, or because of money, or because of time -- but that seems like a paper thin excuse. Microsoft's got the same opportunities Sony does to make graphical showcase games.
I just think there's a very pervasive dismissal of Guerilla's talent going on, and it's cheap. They've proven themselves to be savvy, extremely competent developers and you can hand money and time to lots of various studios out there and the likelihood of them outputting a game similar to Killzone 2's caliber is very slim.
DongHungLong
Banned
WinFonda said:
Lawl Splinter Cell: Conviction....
PS3 can't do its AI lmfao...
Stink said:
Exclusive Amiga games in general were far more impressive than ST/Amiga mutli-platformers. So those were often used to determine how powerful the Amiga really was for gaming. The fact that Shadow of the Beast looked so much better on the Amiga compared the ST version was due to being developed as an Amiga exclusive first and then being ported to the ST a year later. We may see something similar happening with regard to Final Fantasy XIII on the PS3 vs the later 360 port, if the devs don't decide to make sacrifices to simplify cross platform porting (which they claim not to be the case).
Some lowend Amiga model exclusives:
Elfmania:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zCqLqj3QOEQ
Disposable Hero:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bEJpvUVPCtw
Ruff 'n Tumble:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Kvpm4t4A1o
Lionheart:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eeBVhq1IEqA
sleeping_dragon
Banned
WinFonda said:
u hit the spot there buddy, very good post!!
MikeB said:
At some point you have to stop and go with the engine in it's current state or the game would never be released. So yes Killzone has benefited from it's years in development time.
Gears lag has to do more with network coding and nothing to do with the number of players.It can/will be fixed with a patch.
People said the 360 reached it's peak with Gears 1.
And ALL 360 launch games ran on one core and were single threaded so I'm going to have to call B.S. on the 85 percent claim.
If Bungie spent more time devolping Halo 3 it could have looked better. It seems like Bungie was focused more on gameplay than graphics. Halo 3 still has one of the if not thee best multiplayer environment around.Halo 3 in no way pushed the xenon or xenos for that matter.
Every generation when a system launched later and was superior, it still had better graphics than the system that launched earlier in the same generation. 1 year head start means nothing and it's all up to the developer.
You can't compare the enviroments in Resistance and Gears because Gears is designed to be up close and personal. When you look at the two next to each other Gears has the better graphics but that's not a fair statement considering the fact thet they use two different engines with different technologies. The 360 can render more on screen polygons but I'm willing to bet that it uses less polys than R2 because of how well unreal engine 3 works with texturesIt's all about how you use the tech.
just tray said:
That's due to Epic's claims of maxing out the 360 hardware with Gears 1. Personally I thought there to be well enough headroom for a sequel to go further, albeit not as much as I thought, this was pointed out to me earlier within this thread with how much launch games already made use of the Xenon.
That's not true, reread this thread. The Microsoft docs are pretty clear on how all 3 Xenon cores were used for 1st/2nd party launch games.
They had a lot of time already, gameplay is rather similar to earlier Halo games, single player is short, not too impressive and its online isn't very complex.
IMO if the game wasn't Microsoft's flagship "Halo", but they replaced master chief with someone else released under a different name it would have received less hype.
WinFonda said:
Another faulty proposal. Just because this generation is closer than ever before doesn't make it true. Xbox ports in the last generation (that were supposedly generally development lead on PS2) still enjoyed better performance, more effects and sometimes extra online modes.
Stink said:
The orignal XBox was like a cut down PC and thus much better suited to run DirectX type game engines. The PS2 was technically very different, not very well suited for FPS games (which almost all originate from the PC at the time).
A PS2 optimised game like God of War 2 may well be far more difficult to do on the XBox.
just tray said:
very good point dude. besides it is the Art Direction which makes the final look of the game not necessarily the polygon amount or the geometry. I am really really exited to see what they did with God of War 3. It had such a incredible Art Design in its first two games. Will they be able bring the same quality to the new game and the deal with the so much more advanced hardware in the right way?
MikeB said:
Most FPS PC ports/games were Xbox-exclusive in that generation because of DirectX, but that has no relevance on the discussion either.
I'm talking about cross-platform titles. DirectX wouldn't have anything to do with that.
edit: I notice you're plucking out an optimised title again, which takes the whole thing back full circle. When it comes down to removing the science in favour of personal interpretation (for example I could say "Ninja Gaiden" in response), then the whole discussion is just pointless, and you can pluck examples of whatever you like, claim it looks better and blissfully ignore that the vast majority of games are multiplatform, easily comparable, and perform better on 360 by a huge majority.
Stink said:
Do you have one in mind in particular? Of course the original XBox included a harddrive which should provide a big advantage technically in terms of texture streaming and such, ironically the default harddrive is also claimed to be the reason by Microsoft, why the original XBox had to die a premature death.
BTW IMO the orignal XBox was a bulky ugly console which burned down people's houses. ;-)
MikeB said:
no, I don't have any particular ones in mind, because as we're seeing with this generation so far as well, the superiority is clear across the board, and the bulk of the game libraries in that generation, just as they are know, are cross-platform, although possibly due to the high cost of development we're seeing more and more 360 exclusives from third party developers.
Tormentoso
Banned
just tray said:
Killzone 2 has as many time on development as GOW had,in fact the first demo of Unreal Engine 3 was shown on may 2004,and what game demo it? Yep GOW,in fact GOW was in development before the was a 360 dev kit,and in fact i remember that on E3 2005 the game was running not on the xbox 360,but on a PC with an Nvidia SLI setup.
Development for Killzone 2 probably started by early 2006,which is why 2 GOW games had been release,also GOW 2 use many things from the first one on the same engine,so is not like they build the sequel from scratch.
When all is say and done Killzone 2 would have like 6 to 9 more months in development than what it took to make GOW.But is not the fact that there is no time to improve much,is the fact that GOW has been like the pinnacle of graphics on 360,i don't think any game on 360 beat it in every aspect,even more now GOW2.
I just don't really think that time is the problem,i think is more of a hardware one Killzone 2 may take several months more than GOW 1 or 2 to make,but we should not forget that the PS3 is not a walk in the park to develop for,while the xbox 360 is more like it.
You really notice that is not the actual time of development a game has,that is helping Killzone 2 when you look at Uncharted,a game with a sequel coming already,and actually beat GOW graphically.
From what i see it is the hardware and how it works,and sony muscle as devs,we can't forget that on PS2 they were second to non when the topic was graphics,GT4 and GOW2 are like the best looking games on PS2.
I think is a mix of talent and hardware what makes the difference.
Stink said:
Don't you find this comment strange, if earnings are your main consideration, multi-platform releases make sense for a multi-platform developer's perspective (the PS3 can handle near identical ports from the 360, you don't redesign the assets from scratch). That's why last year's "Game of the year" Bioshock is now also on the PS3 and many other games which were released for the 360 exclusively, like Oblivion which was much praised for the 360 (hailed as the 360's best game before Gears arrived) or Lost Planet.
MikeB said:
No, I don't find it strange at all. There is no such thing as a sure thing, and exclusives that have bombed/not done so well have not been ported. You're only seeing one side of the story there. Where is Dead Rising PS3, where is Test Drive Unlimited, Rockstar Table Tennis, Ace Combat 6, Left 4 Dead (and you know I could go on and on here).
Stink said:
Does it make sense to port 360 launch games to the PS3 at this point? More likely Micro$oft had some exclusive deals on those with the companies to get things started for the 360.
Left 4 Dead is a valve game and boss Gabe (Microsoft era millionair) does not like the PS3 for some reason. ;-)
I deliberately quoted old games there besides L4D because any exclusivity deals would have expired a while ago (for example DR and Rockstar Table Tennis are now going to Wii, TDU was on PSP, AC6 could easily have had an RR6/7 equivalent on PS3).
The release of Orange Box proves that it's not some childish grudge on Gabe's part.
The release of Orange Box proves that it's not some childish grudge on Gabe's part.
Stink said:
The majority of best sold 360 games are already on the PS3 as well, amongst both console's top 25 the PS3 has more exclusives within its best sold games list than the 360.
If a developer thinks a game could do well on the PS3 and there are no deals preventing them to do so, they will.
Stink said:and why do you think this is?
Look at the reverse of what you're saying again
Best sold 360 games so far:
1) Halo 3- Microsoft (exclusive)
2) Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare Activision (on both)
3) Grand Theft Auto IV Take-Two Interactive (on both)
4) Gears Of War Microsoft (exclusive)
5) Forza Motorsport 2 Microsoft (exclusive)
6) Assassins Creed Ubisoft (on both)
7) Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock RedOctane (on both)
8) Gears of War 2 Microsoft (exclusive)
9) Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 2K Games (on both)
10) Marvel: Ultimate Alliance Activision (on both)
11) Call of Duty: World at War (on both)
12) Madden NFL 08 Electronic Arts (on both)
13) Guitar Hero II RedOctane (on both)
14) Call of Duty 2 Activision (too old)
15) Tom Clancy Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter Ubisoft (on both)
16) Tom Clancy Rainbow Six: Vegas Ubisoft (on both)
17) Call of Duty 3 Spike (on both)
18) Mass Effect Microsoft (exclusive)
19) Bioshock 2K Games (on both)
20) Rock Band MTV Games (on both)
21) Saints Row THQ (too old, part 2 also on PS3)
22) Madden NFL 07 Electronic Arts (on both)
23) Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 Ubisoft (on both)
24) Fable II Microsoft (exclusive)
25) Fight Night Round 3 EA (on both)
6 Microsoft published exclusives.
17 3rd party multi-platformers available for both systems.
2 old games, which however have received sequels on the PS3 as well.
Stink said:
I thought your point was we are seeing more and more heavy hitting 3rd party exclusives on the 360? ;-)
BTW, multi-platformers released in equal time frames perform well on the PS3 as well, there are a few which performed better absolutely and many which performed better relatively (taking into account install base, due to a 1 year headstart for Japan and North America, 1 year and 5 months for PAL regions and bigger headstart for other regions).
PS3 has been with us long enough for developers to have games performing exactly the same on both consoles. Frame rate,resolution and particle effects should be the same BUT they are not.
I don't have one single game that performs better on PS3 and with recent releases like the terrible resistance 2 coming from the acclaimed IG I have now consigned myself to the fact that the 360 is without a doubt more powerful and better than the PS3.
The bottom line is that the original PS3 specs were changed and at the last minute NVIDEA were drafted in to replace the second CELL with an off the shelf GPU and it shows.
The PS3 hardware is an abomination and people need to wake up to this fact!!!!
Stop defending sony's hype machine, it's just a piece of silicon not something merlin himself dreamed up.
I cannnot believe people honestly think there really is some sort of hidden power!
All game console produce better games as they get older,Its called familiarity with the hardware.
I don't have one single game that performs better on PS3 and with recent releases like the terrible resistance 2 coming from the acclaimed IG I have now consigned myself to the fact that the 360 is without a doubt more powerful and better than the PS3.
The bottom line is that the original PS3 specs were changed and at the last minute NVIDEA were drafted in to replace the second CELL with an off the shelf GPU and it shows.
The PS3 hardware is an abomination and people need to wake up to this fact!!!!
Stop defending sony's hype machine, it's just a piece of silicon not something merlin himself dreamed up.
I cannnot believe people honestly think there really is some sort of hidden power!
All game console produce better games as they get older,Its called familiarity with the hardware.
no, my overarching point is that here in the real world, the 360 is overwhelmingly the best performer in terms of games I can actually buy. Pragmatism.
Relatively better :lol :lol :lol
how about "the 360 is relatively miles ahead because the hardware is significantly cheaper". I can make up bullshit logic too!
Relatively better :lol :lol :lol
how about "the 360 is relatively miles ahead because the hardware is significantly cheaper". I can make up bullshit logic too!
sleeping_dragon
Banned
Barso said:
wtf? have you even seen Killzone 2 in action, the MP alone shit on everything on any other console and that include Gear of War 2.