-
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
Mr.Potato Head
Banned
BeeDog said:
Look at 360's exclusives..while i somewhat agree that Gears1 and Gears2 are 360's babies but not TECHNICALLY built ground up for that hardware..it was really built for PC hardware but since the 360 is closer to PC hardware then PS3 is.. .Gears1 and Gears 2 really excelled with 360 hardware to the point it could pass as in-house engine built for 360 hardware. So i would say Killzone2 is more closer to PS3's hardware then Gears1/2 is to 360 hardware... I remember CLEAR AS DAY when the Unreal Engine3 first came out how the 360 had some issues with it at first... there were some issues with UE3 at first when running on 360 hardware...so by no means is UE3 built from ground up for 360 hardware
I honestly feel the 360 overall has a very slight advantage with graphics..only because all of its hardware is in harmony with one another while the PS3 .. lets be honest now, that RSX was never in the plans from the start..it was more/less a last minute change and it shows because its damn hard to produce game as stunning as KZ2 is on PS3 hardware.. look how much money and time was poured into that title for a game that does not blow away Gears2 graphically or Crysis... to me its better looking then both Gears2 and Crysis but not by alot..who ever says by alot is VERY OFF in that judgment here.
I know the 360 is capable of Killzone2 graphics if the time and money is spent on it and of course..the raw talent of the developers making teh game.. people seem to overlook that the developers are also a HUGE factor in how good a game comes out looking..its just not about the engine, the hardware..its also the developers creating the game that makes all the diffrence too! I mean.. look at the new james bond game...it uses the same engine as COD4... which game looks better? COD4 easily looks better....PROOF of what im saying.
Lets not forget the graphics chips in these systems.. the 360's gpu is a whole generation ahead of PS3's RSX... so lets not get it twisted now you PS3 fanboys. Both consoles has its strengths and weaknesses...overall the two systems are close enough in overall power that makes it a wash when you start to factor in ease of use, tools,etc on top of the hardware...all the rest is up to the kind of talent developers have with the hardware.
As i said before... when we talk "in-house" studios... Sony has a better group of in house developers then what Microsoft has that seem to be able to make better use out any sort of hardware tossed in front of them.... just imagine what these guys would be able to do if Sony's PS3 had 360's hardware inside it...i think we would be seeing just as many graphically impressive games using 360's hardware in a PS3... its really about that raw talent behind these engines, hardware,etc..the hardware itself overall when comparing the pro's and con's of both sets of consoles are all a wash after its all said and done.. it really is with the 360 having that slight edge with a bit better hardware.
I mean we already heard from developers over and over saying this already..that the 360 overall is a bit more better overall but the differences arent that huge.. less so then last gen..and thats really the damn truth of it all. So before any fanboys go crazy over how nice KZ2 looks.. yeah i even said it looks freaking aswesome and to me is the best looking game to date including anything out there on PC's for the moment...it does NOT MEAN all of a sudden the PS3 is just oh so much more powerful then 360... Sony put in tons of time and money and got fortunate that Guerrilla Games were the guys behind the game...there for thats why this game looks so damn good.. because some very very talented developers were behind the game.
just tray said:
MikeB said:
No shame, Kameo is an awesome game. AA lovers may hate the fact the game had no Anti Aliasing, but IMO having AA or no AA does not really break a good HD game.
PGR3 (/PGR4) isn't my sort of game, Motorstorm: Pacific Rift is much more impressive and fun for me personally.
herod said:
What about Halo 3 then, the 360's flagship shooter? It had enough money behind it, and also ~3 years worth of dev time. And it's a true 360 exclusive from a Microsoft-owned studio, running on a single-platform engine. Yet GeOW1/2, both running on a multiplatform engine as you call it, looks infinitely better.
My point is, time and money doesn't automatically produce wowsome visuals. (I don't mean to open up any cans of worms)
MikeB said:
No shame, Kameo is an awesome game. AA lovers may hate the fact the game had no Anti Aliasing, but IMO having AA or no AA does not really break a good HD game.
PGR3 (/PGR4) isn't my sort of game, Motorstorm: Pacific Rift is much more impressive and fun for me personally.
Yeah I finally agree with you on something. Motorstorm 2 is more fun but they are two different kinds of racers. Andd yes it is a very impressive game. Heck, even the first Motorstorm is impressive.
KeioSquad2
Member
Mr.Potato Head said:
It's sad that you believe all that..........
1) gears was designed from the ground up for 360, UE3 was designed from the ground up for gears, it's in the Behind the xbox book that was published......
2)the xbox gpu uses newer tech, but is from the same generation as the ps3 cpu. Their both very capable and have their pluses and minuses.
3)money and time is one thing, quality of Dev's is another, but your totally dismissing the fact that the ps3 has a huge advantage in it's cpu, and although the 360 could run a deferred renderer, it does not have the extra processing the spu's allow, and the 360 gpu will get bogged down with what could easily be passed on to the spu's for rsx.
Please, do some research before you post your opinions as facts, and stop with the fan boy labels, as it only incriminates you.....
KeioSquad2
Member
herod said:are you sure UE3 wasn't designed from the ground up for Unreal?
By all means..........read up on it. That would have made sense if Gears wasn't the first game to use the engine.... and gears 2 wasn't the first game to show the modified engine........
UntoldDreams
Member
Mr.Potato Head said:
Essentially What you are saying is that you believe the 360 and PS3 are basically the same in power. You are incorrect from a computational throughput standpoint.
XBox 1 had more powerful hardware than the PS2. This is a known fact. It didn't stop the PS2 from having fantastic games and a great library which was better than the XBox 1.
In this case... the situation is reversed. The PS3 is the clear computational powerhouse. This is not preventing great games from appearing on the 360. You don't need to defend the realm here. It doesn't need your defense.
However... What you are saying above right now is something like "The PS2 is just as powerful as the XBOX 1". The 360 is a fine gaming machine but it physically cannot punch out the same amount of math as the PS3 when push comes to shove.
Again, you don't need to defend the realm of Microsoft. They are clearly wining in a popularity contest between the two consoles.
I'm simply saying you don't need to fabricate reality on the relative power of the computers underneath the hood.
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
just tray said:
I don't smoke.
Hey, I have both games, and I think Uncharted looks better. That's my opinion. Do you have both games to have an opinion about it?
herod said:
Okay, if Gears should not be looked upon as the most sound experience from a technical standpoint, then what is? Gears/1/2 are almost always the title trumpeted as the best on the 360. From my experience, I'd definitely say they are the most impressive games on the 360, hands down. They look and play fucking incredibly, and a lot of 360 games do, but I think Gears is the best. CliffyB thinks they're pulling as much as can be pulled out of the system, and he's been working on it as long as anyone else has. I don't know who would be a better person to ask than him, to be frank.
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
DP Sorry
gollumsluvslave
Member
This is quite an interesting thread.
I think the single most interesting game from a performance point of view to come out will be the multiplatform Rage from Id
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Carmack and crew raise the bar from a technical point of view on BOTH PS3 and 360.
Net effect? It always comes down to the developer talent IMHO.
This gen has easily the least differences I've seen between ports AND exclusives.
I think the single most interesting game from a performance point of view to come out will be the multiplatform Rage from Id
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Carmack and crew raise the bar from a technical point of view on BOTH PS3 and 360.
Net effect? It always comes down to the developer talent IMHO.
This gen has easily the least differences I've seen between ports AND exclusives.
Fenderputty
Banned
^^^Doesn't Carmack hate the PS3 and multi-core development? I thought the reason he didn't hate the 360 was because it's similar to the PC. He might be good, but I wouldn't count on him to do something revolutionary with the PS3 architecture.
KeioSquad2 said:
This man is right. UE3 was built for GoW, they even said so in one of the interviews/behind the scenes at one point.
UT was dying and they knew it, so they moved to a different game.
And to those saying GoW is not a valid comparison of the power of the 360 because its on a multiplatform engine, offer a better comparison source. Halo 3? That had a giant budget and tons of time behind it. Or Too Human, that was an even bigger budget. If not, what else?
Tormentoso
Banned
InterMoniker said:yawn... Like almost all the most hardcore xbox fans on here aren't doing the opposite of what I bolded. Usually it's a multiplatform release with one little flaw and xbox fans try to use that as proof that the 360 is better it's downright wrong
Don't make me quote your tag.
It was the first thing they did when GOW landed,the endless GOW vs Resistance comparisons rained over the net,how the PS3 was weak because nothing on launch looked quite like GOW,now they just don't want to go there or accuse others of doing exactly what they did.
One way or the other Killzone 2 does look better than anything on 360,been the PS3 more powerful or not.
JudgeN said:
Of course and it's excellently done, play the game. Everything you want to know and more:
http://www.naughtydog.com/corporate/press/GDC 2008/UnchartedTechGDC2008.pdf
AgentOtaku
Member
AndyD said:
While I've never seen it actually confirmed by anyone/anything official, it might as well be yeah. I still remebering swooning over those UE3 asset renders a few years back which were yeah, basically GoW assets. Not to mention how much UT3 looks like GoW much to the disapproval of many including myself...
Doesn't mean devs can't do wonderful things with the engine with the right talent and the right hardware know how behind it. See Mirror's Edge, a game that you wouldn't even know was UE3 at first glance until you saw the player models
Shit remeber all of the crazy shit they were able to do with the Quake 3 engine!
Mr.Potato Head said:
This doesn't make a lot of sense. "Harmony" is not a word I would use to describe 360's hardware. If the 360 has a slight power advantage, it hasn't shown it yet. Meanwhile, the PS3 is at the very least creating the perception of a performance gap with the likes of Killzone 2 and perhaps even more so with the likes of God of War III. Whatever reasons you want to ascribe to that gap (Money, time, or talent) outside of the hardware itself is kind of irrelevant.
Mr.Potato Head said:
We can say Killzone 2 is possible on the Xbox but it's empty until we see it done. Guerilla is a very talented studio, but it's Sony's studio. If Killzone 2 is purely a talent driven effort made possible by Guerilla Games and Sony, then I am afraid that's also another definition of not being possible on the Xbox 360, because they won't be developing on the Xbox 360.
Mr.Potato Head said:
That's some line to throw out there. I definitely agree with you both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. But the PS3's architecture is both a strength and a weakness. It might be bothersome to exploit for those uninitiated with the kind of asymmetric architecture that exists inside the PS3, and those people might prefer to have the known quantity of general purpose cores or a PC like environment.
Even John Carmack has said he prefers the Xbox 360's symmetrical architecture, but that it's possible to get more peak performance out of the PS3. That sounds like a fair assessment, but do you think PS3's architecture is a realistic problem for those within Sony and those especially familiar with the hardware? I really doubt it. The 360's familiarity, symmetrical architecture or ease of use doesn't really come into play there.
Mr.Potato Head said:
You seem really confused. The idea that Sony's developers would be more at home with Microsoft's hardware is kind of silly. Also, when you say the 360 has better hardware than PS3, what exactly are you referring to here? For arguments sake, say the PS3 and 360's CPU and GPU create a wash in terms of performance, the PS3 would still have the added benefit of additional hardware like the Blu-Ray drive and the standard HDD in every system.
I also think it's silly to say that Sony's developers are always working against the grain and are simply more talented than Microsoft's developers and this is what manages to make up the difference in Sony's hardware. It just doesn't pan out. They're very talented, yes, but there's a lot of talent to go around in the industry. And again, Microsoft has one of the most technically proficient devs in their stable with Rare.
Mr.Potato Head said:
You're right, the difference between the PS3 and 360 isn't going to be huge one way or another. But you know man, you seem willing to compromise and assign any kind of explanation to the PS3 other than the fact that it might be a more capable machine. Because if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might just be a duck.
MikeB said:
I wasn't going to ask this question because someone will call me a fanboy but shit I'm interested. I know very alittle about graphics so forgive my ignorance. But Gears of War series is consider the best looking game on consoles that is currently released. But from a technical standpoint is that really the case? Uncharted is full 720P with 2x AA, high resolution textures, dynamic shadows and lighting, top animation, and more. I'm curious to see what it is that UE engine is doing from a technical standpoint that makes a better looking then the uncharted engine?
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
wait, you are using old usenet postings (with a top population of what exactly at that time?) to prove Shadow of the Beast Universally ended the argument of superiority?
there's at least several posters here from the old ST/Amiga scene, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. After shadow of the beast, the arguments INTENSIFIED.
At least on a SCENE level.
Even if it was obviously true - no one was ever going to admit it from the ST scene.
Anyways, that's getting off topic.
WinFonda said:
This makes too much sense for some of the people in this thread.
On one hand we have arguments that GoW is the best looking X360 game, and it should be a flagship title, on the other we have the argument that GoW is on a third party engine and it should not be compared to other non X360 games...
I think that while GoW looks great, and the attention to detail is great, it is far far away from the kind of stuff we are seeing out of Killzone 2. Both in terms of textures which are the main strength of GoW series and UT games in general and also models, animations, size of the environements, number of online players and so forth. And three of the weaknesses of GoW and GoW2, texture popup, lag in MP and its relatively small environments are not present in K2, at least not in the beta anyway, and by people's reports not in the preview code.
And to those arguing that the PS3 GPU is weaker, while it may be true, the Cell picks up some of the traditionally GPU functions such as AA and some of the post processing effects. So if anything, the match between Cell and RSX is much better than its 360 counterpart, as tasks can be divided at will depending on design requirements.
I just cant imagine what we might see next time around if Sony sticks two Cell processors in there, one for graphics alone. It would be a difficult programming environment once again, but if they provide a set of tools developed this gen it should be a relatively easy task.
I think you fused him with Gabe Newell in your mind.Fenderputty said:
John Carmack only said it takes more effort to do multi-threading than not doing it, and it takes even more effort on SPEs, due to their unusual memory model. He's a very rational person.
The Xbox 360 doesn't have all that many similarities to a PC anyway. In-order triple core PPCs, shared memory for system and graphics, eDRAM framebuffer, no virtual memory. If that's close to PC architecture, then Gamecube and PS2 are just as close to PC architecture and we can wholesale throw the "close to PC architecture" moniker out of the window as it has just become useless.
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
drakesfortune said:
He just recently said that he expects them to continue find new ways to get more performance:
"I think we're pushing the 360, but the system's not going to get any more RAM, it's not going to get a faster processor, but at the same time that puts the impetus on our programmers and artists to be smarter with what they work with."
Bleszinski went on to compare the Xbox 360 life cycle to that of the Super Nintendo console; graphics gradually increased in quality and just as it seems to reach its limit someone uses "ninja code tricks" to push more out of the system. "It's amazing what programmers can do. I wouldn't count our guys out yet," Cliff added.
http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/...raphics-limit-quote-was-taken-out-of-context/
H.Cornerstone
Member
herod said:
I know Madden and Burnout Paradise both lead on the PS3 lead platform wise.
And comparing Uncharted to Gears of War is kind of apple to Oranges, but I give Uncharted the edge, for some simple reasons: The water Effects in Uncharted are ridiculous. The first time you come across the submarine and the waterfall is gorgeous! 2nd, GOW is essentially a corridor shooter, where as Uncharted has much more vast environments that span much further. 3. Uncharted has color.
And anyone who doesn't think Killzone 2 is the best looking console game so far needs to get their eyes checked. What Guerrilla has been able to do is ridiculous, and no it could not have been done on the 360. The amount of space the textures take would be too much for a DVD alone. And Also, I don't think the 360 has the power to be able to do the deferred rendering, the MSAA and all the crazy physics that go into it. But I wouldn't call Guerilla a "talented" dev yet. Yes, they have been able to do a lot with the graphics, but it takes more than that to be considered "Talented."
The PS3 is more powerful than the 360, the gap between the 360 CPU and PS3 CPU is much greater than the difference between the Xenos and the RSX, It's just much much different to program for. I wouldn't say it's that much more difficult, it's just like teaching someone to type that new keyboard way after learning QWERTY for 20 years. Which is why Media Molecule and Ninja Theory were able to put out such quality titles. AS someone pointed out, John Carmack, quite possibly one of the best ever at creating the top of the line engine tech, says it's better.
Carmack and Newell don't like the PS3 because it radically different than PC and they have to rework how the program for it.
And It's hard to disagree that Sony has more talented first party/second party studios as the only company MSFT has anymore is Rare.
I think it's fair to say Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Sucker Punch and Sony Santa Monica are some of the most talented devs out there right now.SolidSnakex
Member
All leading on the PS3 means is there might be a legitimate chance that it doesn't look poor in comparison to the 360 version. They aren't going to really try to take advantage of the full performance of either system. You can read developer interviews where they say their goal is to make is where you can't tell the difference between each platform.
KZ2 is not possible on the X360, because KZ2 is using a deferred rendering engine that requires the SPU.Mr.Potato Head said:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/43389.html
The tech video from gametrailer pretty much shows what each SPUs is doing. Impossible for X360's Xenon CPU and hardware configuration that is limited to 10MB Edram of frame buffer.
X3D0? Come on.
You don't have to lead on the PS3 to get good results out of the platform. You really just have to be willing to put in the effort to port the code you wrote for the 360/PC to the PS3. We are well aware of how code runs unchanged on the PS3. Like shit. And we lose tons of shaders and other visual features as well.
Take a look at Ubisoft this generation.
Splinter Cell: Double Agent -> Assassin's Creed -> Far Cry 2 -> Prince of Persia
Every game got progressively better. Far Cry 2 was a great port, had only minimal framedropping compared to the 360 version and even had deeper, fuller shadows (and both games had AA, the PS3 using quincux or whatever that KZ2 is using), and Prince of Persia is basically identical on both platforms.
This idea that you HAVE to "lead" on a platform to get better results only produces better results when you are putting so little effort into the port that it becomes significantly less work to just drag the code from the PS3 to the 360. At least that's my experience with games.
You don't have to lead on the PS3 to get good results out of the platform. You really just have to be willing to put in the effort to port the code you wrote for the 360/PC to the PS3. We are well aware of how code runs unchanged on the PS3. Like shit. And we lose tons of shaders and other visual features as well.
Take a look at Ubisoft this generation.
Splinter Cell: Double Agent -> Assassin's Creed -> Far Cry 2 -> Prince of Persia
Every game got progressively better. Far Cry 2 was a great port, had only minimal framedropping compared to the 360 version and even had deeper, fuller shadows (and both games had AA, the PS3 using quincux or whatever that KZ2 is using), and Prince of Persia is basically identical on both platforms.
This idea that you HAVE to "lead" on a platform to get better results only produces better results when you are putting so little effort into the port that it becomes significantly less work to just drag the code from the PS3 to the 360. At least that's my experience with games.
Been cleaned up...Onix said:
Its not about lead. Its about being created exclusively for a particular console is when you'll see the result. Ports are ports. Identical in every way as possible, except for frame rates and resolution purpose due to developer lack of.Y2Kev said:
The RSX isn't weaker, it's less programmable. Quite the contrary, the tasks it's designed to do well, it does much better than xenos (fillrate and shader operations p/s and bandwidth for example). There is simply much more logic on the main die on RSX. The E-DRAM daughter die logic next to xenos is purely for the less than great "free" AA.
PS3 has the programmability centered where it counts and were it's easiest to use - on Cell.
Cell can do a lot of culling (visibility determination) and preprocessing for RSX that will make it a lot more efficient.
Or, you - as a programmer can choose to use that power for something else...
PS3 has the programmability centered where it counts and were it's easiest to use - on Cell.
Cell can do a lot of culling (visibility determination) and preprocessing for RSX that will make it a lot more efficient.
Or, you - as a programmer can choose to use that power for something else...
Mr.Potato Head said:
utter garbage.
to sugest 360, a full year older a device than ps3 , is on par, doesn't make sence, more so when you consider track records of sony and MS in terms of hardware.
if theye where on par hardware wise then also considering the supposed extra ease of devlopment, 360 titles, a full year ahead of the ps3 cycle should all be looking a full sw generation ahead.
they aren't, they struggle to match it with a ps3 title like uncharted which is what ..a year old now almost, and KZ2 actually leapfrogs anything on 360.
assuming hardware is equal like you suggest then to explain what we are seeing from sony devs is to say nothing short of proclaiming sony 1st party coding GODS, that have some how managed to get a full sw cycle ahead of 360 devs, on more complex hardware.
...
but i'm sure uncharted 2, God of War3, team-ICo's next project et all should prove this level of ps3 graphical fidelity the norm rather than some uber funded aperition
Gears of War 2 has some much more open environments compared to the first game.H.Cornerstone said:
Well there are already 360 games with some deferred rendering and MSAA like Crackdown and GTAIV, and while KZ2s look is somewhat dependant on deferred rendering, parts of what make the game look as good as it does, like the amazing smoke and particle effects have little to do with it?
Deferred rendering doesn't require SPUs, and I'm sure it'd be possible to recreate a similar look with forward renderer. There are also limitations with deferred rendering on consoles because of the extra memory requirements. For example KZ2 has to do without HDR lighting.JoJo13 said:
FYI: Xbox 360 isn't really limited by its 10MB EDRAM. Any 720p games with AA come in well over 10MB, and there are lots of those.
That's all nice and dandy what you just said. But the reality is that M$ does not have anything in their 1st party that can match what Sony's 1st party has achieved. Its probably M$'s 1st party developers lack of talent as money should not be an issue for M$.danwarb said:
FYI: X360 is limited to the 10MB Edram, it has to tile every frame to fit this limitation.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
I think you're getting a lot right here in your posts.UntoldDreams said:
It comes down to this. The PS3 has significantly more computational capability than the 360. Unfortunately, to unlock that capability, it takes significantly more time and resources.
Given that, with a few exceptions, any PS360 game with a typical 18-24 month development cycle is going to look better and/or have a higher frame rate on the 360.
Given an additional 12-18 months, the PS3 version will likely run at the same frame rate and look the same or significantly better.
Lastly, a talented team, with very strong previous experience with the PS3 and it's SPEs, and a solid plan on how to make good use of them, would likely be able to create a better looking game in that 18-24 months than could be created by a similar team who's strengths lied in the architecture of the 360.
In the end, neither system will have the luxury of having very many exclusives that make great use of their individual strengths as neither system is in an insurmountable 1st place.
People, quit the amateur speculation (I've been guilty many times too, I know it when I see it) and the system wars and stick to finding info relevant to the topic, please. This can be a good thread, and sometimes it is.
PS: keep it up if your handle contains Fafalada, Calen, Panajev, Nostromo or similar caliber names in it.
PS: keep it up if your handle contains Fafalada, Calen, Panajev, Nostromo or similar caliber names in it.
Tormentoso
Banned
Mr.Potato Head said:
Incredible that people actually believe that a few more months of development than GOW took and allot of money is actually the reason why Killzone 2 look so good,never mind that Uncharted was not in development as long as Killzone 2 is and still just plain out did anything on 360,is hard to believe that the xbox 360 with time and money will get Killzone 2 level of graphics,the xbox 360 is a walk in the park to develop for compare to the PS3,is suppose to be stronger by some people words yet it hasn't trow a game with Killzone 2 level of graphics yet,even that the console has 1 full year ahead of the PS3 on the market.
GOW2 release took place just in time for the xbox 360 3rd birthday,the PS3 will be 2 years and what 2 months when Killzone 2 lands?and you people still believe that Killzone has ages on the making,some of you actually forget that the PS3 just turn 2,what time are you talking about? on 2005 Killzone 2 was a CG nothing more nothing less,GOW started on 2004 and launc on 2006 the sequel on 2008 pretty much 2 years,killzone 2 will have little more than that when all is say an done.
Hell is funny that money is even bring here as excuse,when talking about the xbox 360,you know when MS has like bought almost all the exclusive they have get,they trow tons of money every where,what you think epic made the game for 360 because they like MS? They got pay and big time even more for the sequel i am sure.
Now that last part is just silly propaganda man,yeah the xbox moved 300 million polygons and they achieve 3 times the in game performance of the PS2.
The fact that a hardware is unified in nothing means that is 1 generation ahead,that look like is pull right from Ati PR books,in fact if Ati had something that actually leap frog a Nvidia 7800 by summer 2005 they would had it on stores and not on a console.
That is just propaganda quite easy to spot,once again i don't know where the advantage is coming,until the xbox 360 shows something killzone 2 like or better in my books the PS3 is stronger,i don't know if it is Cell or not,the advantage is there and the difference between Killzone 2 and GOW2 is quite visible,and while it doesn't quite blow it,it does look quite allot better from lighting to animation is just out do GOW2 by a considerable margin.and Killzone should not even been compare to Crysis the fact that people do is and honor to the PS3,since the PS3 doesn't get a new CPU and GPU every 4 months like PC's do.
In fact few are the developer who had actually go on record saying the xbox 360 is stronger,and i think in fact that more had say it about the PS3.
Tormentoso
Banned
sun-drop said:
Exactly that is my point the xbox 360 is easier to code for this has been know for a while,has 1 full year ahead of the PS3 and is suppose to be stronger is impossible that games look inferior to PS3 exclusives.
Hell some may call me a fan boy,but i think the gap will get even wider and sony push it more and more,if the PS1 and PS2 graphic progression is something to go by.