supposed to act like fanboys all the time, but my point was simply that while Gears looks better than most games, it's not mind-blowingly better, but the information presented above would have one believe it should be blowing 1st gen PS3 games out of the water. Despite your terminology, looking at things without fanboy lenses, it is not. Gears aside, the graphic distinctions start to evaporate between 360's best and PS3's best which just couldn't happen if everything William said was true. In essence, I'm saying the processing power thing is pretty nuanced and complicated and in the end the best for both systems will likely look roughly equivalent so people like us who don't write games for these systems should probably just stay away from armchair software engineering.

And I think you have me confused with another James... this is the first time I've ever posted here, actually. And while I may be dousing the fanboy fires a bit, I'm just trying to make sure that an even-handed opionion was presented. A lot of what William said was correct, just a bit slanted (IMO). If the 360 has "twice the available RAM" and "twice the polygon power" then 360 programmers must be the worst in the world because their games aren't looking that much better than those on a system "half" as powerful. Obviously, the programmers are fine, but the statements about the relative processing power of the two systems was a bit misleading. That's all I'm saying.

Reply

I can't wait for this.

Got my 360 recently, and have been playing the heck out of R6V, GRAW2, and SC:DA. I love these games.

My (other) work has suffered :)

Reply

@Jason

"I wouldn't expect the PS3 games to look much better then they do now..."

LoL...that's the equivalent of saying you didn't expect 360 games to look much better than the launch games. While the knowledge of the PS3 was in existence as long as the 360 has, the game developers for the PS3 had to deal with changing specifications of the PS3 while it was in the development process and Sony wasn't offering as much development tool s to aid them as Microsoft did with the 360. As a result, the PS3 games haven't been utilizing the PS3's hardware as well as they could have been. Now, game developers have the final specs of the PS3, so they don't have to develop games for a "moving target" and Sony is improving the tools they offer them. If you want me to be honest, I don't think 360 games can improve much after Halo 3. I believe the 360 is near its potential, while the PS3 has greater possibilities fr improvement. The 360 was designed to reach its potential now, the PS3 was designed for long-term potential.

Reply

The Guy... Don't forget too that the whole idea of developing "next gen" games isn't platform specific... Studios learned with 360 how to design games with better hardware... regardless of which machine it was... Most likely studios needed new tools to develop higher res graphics for the next gen games... that isn't specific to the 360... and who cares about moving target... they had dev kits... the only final issue was blu-ray and DRM which has nothing to do with games.

And the fact that PS3 developers didn't get much from Sony just helps prove the fact that the 360 is better for game developers... Microsoft is commited to making game development easy on the 360... Sony isn't quite the same.

Reply

@Jason

Well...you're probably right about Microsoft being more developer-friendly than Sony. Sony created the PS3 with an engineering focus, which lead to the use of things like Cell which hasn't been easy for game developers to use. For Microsoft, they made the 360 to be more developer-friendly. While that is currently hurting Sony with their games, it'll lead to greater improvements of games in the future than the 360. With more complex software, Sony couldn't offer tools that utilized the hardware as well as the 360 could in the beginning. As I said before, Sony is looking for long-term potential with the PS3.

Reply

I think it is kind of funny when ps3 fanboys say that Resistance is a good game. The graphics remind me of Doom 1, though the gameplay is worse...

Reply

@TheGuy

Hahaha, that's a good one, do either of you sony fanboys have anything to back any of your crap up? No, you don't. There's no "mysterious, godlike potential" locked away in the PS3. Why don't you do some research before you post something that's just gonna make you look stupid. The FACT is that the 360's GPU is FAR SUPERIOR to the PS3's. Why don't you go back to PS3 Fanboy where ignorance, stupidity, and BLIND LOYALTY is more acceptable.

Reply

Could we get this on MS-bashing Slashdot somehow to counter the story today that bashed the 360 in the headline and reserved the caveat that the PS3 caused development difficulties as well for the fine print? Digg this: http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2007/05/07/ubisoft-says-conviction-cant-be-done-on-ps3/(Slashdot story: http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/05/07/1528220.shtml )

Reply

@The Guy... "Long Term Potential"??? How is that possible with a GPU that was outdated before the machine even launched?

2-3 years from now there will be a new XBOX right around the corner and it will probably cost about the same as the 360... it will be next-next gen and you PS3 fans will still be talking about "long term potential" of the PS3 while we are all getting ready for the true FUTURE of video games. I don't expect a console to last more than 4 or 5 years period... video cards on a PC are outdated before they even get to the shelf...

Sony took the wrong road by cramming expensive tech into the PS3 and skimping on the import part (GPU)... I can justify spending 400 bucks per gen on a console but no 700... Here we are going on two years of the 360 and we are going to get some truley GREAT games in the fall... Then I would expect MS to start working on the next XBOX and getting it out a year or two after this fall... maybe by then your PS3 will finally be reaching its potential and the next-next gen will pass it right by!

Reply

When has a console EVER been maxed out in its second years. the best is ALWAYS at the end of the consoles cycle. If 360 only gets 5 years in cool with that, because thats how its always been. No need to start bytching now.

Reply

To the Jason and TheGuy, about your conversation-
If developers had dev kits with the final PS3 specs at the time of the 360 launch your arguement would be valid. Alas, I'm not sure if that is true or not. Can anyone say for sure that the devs did have the final dev kits? Anywho, it doesnt matter because I think they both look good.

Reply

@Martin

1. You may claim I'm acting like a fanboy, but your the one being immature with that post.

2. While most agree the 360 GPU is better than RSX, it's not "FAR SUPERIOR". In fact, it can be argued that both are relatively equal in that each has their own strengths and weaknesses. But for the sake of this argument, I'll say the 360 GPU is a little better than the RSX. However, the Cell processor is capable of being a lot better than the 360s CPU. I read Lair only used 30% of the capabilities of Cell, while it's around 90% with recent 360 games like Gears of War. Let's not forget, since 360 games are confined to a DVD disk they require greater compression which will require more of the 360s CPU resources to be needed specifically for that, while that won't be necessary for the PS3 with Blu-Ray. PS3 games can also better utilize a hard drive for faster load times, while 360 games have to be made without using it since the "Core" 360 doesn't have a hard drive. I'm not claiming the potential of the PS3 will make PS3 game compare to 360 games like Gears of War vs. Halo 1, but the capability is there for a noticeably greater quality in PS3 games than 360 games.

Reply

@Jason

So your saying that it's better to create consoles with short-term life spans than those with long-term life spans. Besides Nintendo, I find that hard to believe. Do you know how expensive the development of a new console is? Console makers want to milk their current console for as much as they can before they go next-gen. That's why Sony incorporated technology like Cell and Blu-Ray into the PS3, so it would last longer as Sony's current-gen console. Besides if that's what your expecting from consoles I think your better-off as a PC gamer, no offense.

Reply

I was reading James' post and stumbled on this part:

"Processing Power
That the Xbox can display 500 million polygons per second during gameplay while the PS3 can only display 275 million is simply untrue. Do you have a source for this? Obviously, Gears of War aside (maybe), Resistance and Motorstorm look as good as the best of what the 360 has offered so far."

That's like saying: "Atom bomb aside, what did the US arsenal of weaponry have that the Japanese did not."

I'm not exactly picking a side here, though. I believe it all comes down to exclusivity. A game is deemed exclusive, it is built around the architecture of its one console, and that's that. Six months down the road the company thinks about porting it, but sees that, because they used the console to its fullest by programming for the architecture, the game would have to be utterly re-created to be as good as the original as a port. This happens all the time and is the reason we get crappy ports at launches.

The perfect example of what I am speaking of is Resident Evil 4. It was built around the GameCube's architecture and had stunning visuals, AI, and performance. The game was later ported to the PS2, and while maintaining a lot of the source material well, there were slight differences in the versions.

Reply

James,

I suggest you read what William was saying a second time.

William was NOT saying that the Xbox 360 has TWICE the amount of total RAM that the Playstation 3 has. William was simply pointing out how the Xbox 360 has a much better RAM architecture than the Playstation 3.

William specifically said that the Playstation 3 has a bottleneck of only 256MB of CPU RAM. He specifically pointed out that many games currently have a need for more than 256MB of CPU RAM. When needs like that arise, the Xbox 360 has the ability to use its much better 512MB of Unified RAM to help the CPU out, giving it more than 256MB of RAM when the need arises.

Yes, it’s true that when the Xbox 360 CPU has a need for more than 256MB of RAM, it reduces the amount of RAM potentially available for other uses; that goes without saying. But CPU RAM is CRUCIAL! There are MANY times when more than 256MB of CPU RAM is needed, often times when FAR less than 256MB of Video RAM is needed. The Playstation 3’s Non-Unified RAM is NOT efficient and NOT flexible when compared to the superior design of the Xbox 360 Unified RAM.

Think of it like this: The Playstation 3 will never be in a position where all 512MB of RAM are being used in the perfectly balanced way the developers would want; there will always be some RAM that is not being used, which means it is being wasted. But the Xbox 360 will always be in a position where the developers can use all 512MB of RAM in any way they want. No RAM is left unused or wasted with the superior architecture of the Xbox 360.

The lack of CPU RAM is what hurts the Playstation 3 more than anything else when there is all of that slowdown with all of the framerate problems. James, in case you haven't noticed, Motorstorm on the PS3 has a choppy framerate. Motorstorm is considered a disappointment because it didn't live up to the hype. The reviews for Motorstorm specifically point out that "graphics are not the strongpoint of the game."

Resistance: FOM on the Playstation 3 isn't even in the same league as games like Gears of War, Lost Planet, and Crackdown. Resistance was given a 6 out of 10 by some of the reviews; it's not an impressive game. Just look at the way the Independent Playstation Magazine did a side by side comparison of the Playstation 3 games and the Xbox 360 games, and they showed Resistance: FOM next to Gears of War. The editors said Resistance does NOT come close to the best games on the Xbox 360. It showed a side-by-side picture of how Gears of War looks MUCH better than anything on the PS3. Gears of War is a PERFECT example of how the Xbox 360 has access to 500,000,000 polygons per second, while the Playstation 3 only has access to 275,000,000 polygons per second.

There are TWO other reasons why the Xbox 360 has RAM superiority over the Playstation 3.

First, the Xbox 360 Operating System is dedicated to gaming when it is functioning. It takes up only 32MB of RAM. The Playstation 3 Operating System takes up a whopping 96MB of RAM! That is a HUGE waste of RAM! It leaves the PS3 with only 416MB of RAM to work with, while the Xbox 360 has 480MB of RAM. That is one of the reasons why the multi-platform games end up worse on the Playstation 3, particularly with the disappointing framerates. Playstation 3 really is developing a nasty reputation for having poor framerates because of a lack of CPU RAM and a lack of polygon power.

Second, the Xbox 360 has 10MB of eDRAM that is incredibly efficient at helping the Xbox 360 display graphics. Playstation 3 doesn't have anything similar to eDRAM like that; it is a big advantage to help the Xbox 360 with framerates and polygon display smoothness.

I agree with people who say that we just need to look at the performance of the games. The multi-platform third-party games are better on the Xbox 360. Many times, the third-party games released on both systems are a LOT better on the Xbox 360. For proof of this, just look at how awesome the PC and Xbox 360 versions of F.E.A.R. are, but how worthless the Playstation 3 version is. When you look at third-party multiplatform games like F.E.A.R. and Xbox 360 exclusive games like Lost Planet, Crackdown, Gears of War, Mass Effect, and Splinter Cell: Conviction, then there is no doubt that the Xbox 360 offers better graphic performance. And when you look at how much better the online performance of Xbox Live is, it really isn’t even worth a debate. The bottom line is that the Xbox 360 has the best games and Xbox Live is the best online service. If you want the best, the Xbox 360 is the best.

Reply

Here is a hyperlink that proves Ubisoft is making the right choice by acknowledging it wouldn't be a good idea to release Splinter Cell: Conviction for the Playstation 3:

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3158930

If the Playstation 3 versions of games like F.E.A.R. are so much inferior to the Xbox 360 and PC versions, it really would be a dumb decision to release a game like Conviction for the Playstation 3.

It would be selfish for PS3 owners to ask for a game like Splinter Cell: Conviction to be released multiplatform, because the PS3 version of the game wouldn't look nearly as good as it does on the Xbox 360, and the developers would be forced to lower the graphic standards in the Xbox 360 version.

I would rather have the game as an exclusive for the Xbox 360 and make sure it stays so incredible in ways that only the Xbox 360 can offer, in terms of both graphics and online play!

Reply

Ok, RAM and AI have little to do with one-another - there is some ram required to thread tasks, but this is not significant.

RAM is mostly used by resources, textures, models, sounds, music. The PS3 is limited in this split moreso that the 360. If you do not need lots of model data, you can shift some ram to the video pipeline.

As it's based on DX10 technology the 360's video card is able to handle the meshes and their deformations, and it is likely that high end games like gow make use of this.

Both of the core CPUs have their strengths. The PS3's Cell is better for 'predictable' code, things like physics, where something moves along a trajectory are what it does best. Code that is more unpredictable needs to be passed to the PPC chip.

The Blu-Ray debate is void - anyone claiming they need more than DVD9 is pulling your leg. The repeated proof is that PC games rarely come larger than a single layer DVD. the only thing Blu-Ray is useful for is delivering once off HD cut-scenes. Developers don't have the resources to create more data at the current uptake rate of consoles, which is one reason why Live Arcade has taken off so quickly.

Compressed textures / meshes don't make a lick of difference. The videocards in both the PS3 and 360 use compression on textures internally. Leaving your textures uncompressed would only force the PS3 to compress them. This argument actually shows how stupid the blu-ray argument is - the PS3 can only display 256 megs of textures at a time. Streaming textures from blu-ray to the video-card is too slow (even from RAM to VRAM causes problems). So how do these textures actually get used? In a game like GTAIV assets will be streamed as you visit different areas of the map - at every position of the map, only 256 megs of data can be visible. Distance fogging can help here, as can procedural textures. But the limitation remains. In reality far less than 256 megs is available - textures for vehicles and characters and the interface are kept in memory so the game doesn't lag when it has to display objects, some space is kept free to 'stream' data into.

Once you have an idea of how large resources actually are, and how it can stream in, you start to realise how large a game world would have to be to actually use 25 gigs of data and how unfeasable it would be to create.

Reply

You 360 fanyboys are amazing... Dont you guys remember how plain the first 360 games looked whey they released. People were still buying PS2s at that time so what does that they say?..

The only reason Ubisoft is siding with 360 is because they are lazy and more comfortable with developing games right now with the 360 rather than the PS3. Developers were saying how difficult the PS2 was hard to develope for in the beginning too. Remind yourselves that the 360 has been out almost a year and a half while the PS3 has been out not even 6 months. The games isnt that much different besides the frame rate and lighting...

Now, you guys are so stuck on the RAM and etc. Why dont you ask yourselves, how many games do you think will be developed for the 360 in the future when they can only be stored on 9GB DVDs (cough...GTA4).

Trust me, we will not be having this converstion after first year life of the PS3 arrives. GoW maybe the game of 2006 but MGS4 will be the game of 2007...

Its ok though, you guys can keep this little "victory". The war is far from over!!!!

Reply

Here's a question... is posting all of this crap about which system is better on a xbox 360 FANBOY site really going to make a difference?... i would say 90% of the readers are already convinced the 360 is better, and the other 10% are most likely going to disagree cuz theyre ps3 fanboys. Oh and i love how we complain about "ps3 fanboys" posting comments on here, and then we start saying stuff like "go post that on the ps3 fanboy site, show em' who's boss." Are they really going to read our arguments and be like "really? oh okay i didn't know that, thanks for letting me know though... i'm gonna go craigs list my ps3 and get a 360 RIGHT NOW! WOO!" ...obviously the answer i'm hoping you guys come up with is no, theyre just going to retaliate with opposing arguments and use Factor 5 and Lair as an example. With all that said... Ubisoft is like +2 points in my eyes after that...i mean, i am a 360 fanboy afterall.

Reply

Take that PS3 TROLLS!!!!

Reply