All console games are created equal...

Volitions Advocate on 17/6/2009 at 01:10

Quote Posted by dethtoll

Agreed.

Last time I checked an XB360 Elite and an 80Gb PS3 cost the same. ~$400 CDN

EvaUnit02 on 17/6/2009 at 02:21

Yeah sorry, posted the wrong video. But considering that in the OP I was talking specifically about Ghostbusters and not one mention of Red Faction: Guerrilla, the lot of you should've been able to put 2 and 2 together. :rolleyes:

Koki on 17/6/2009 at 05:19

I guess the secret's out: No one reads your posts

Thirith on 17/6/2009 at 06:09

It's annoying: if I were to buy one of the current-gen consoles, I'd go for a PS3 for a couple of reasons:

* Exclusive titles (such as the new Team Trico game)
* Blu-Ray support
* I've got the Rock Band equipment for PS2, which is compatible with PS3

At the same time, so far it seems pretty clear that most of the time the X360 versions of games are better - higher resolution, better FPS - and the PS3 seems overpriced compared to the X360.

Then again, those games that I'm interested in that come out for both consoles tend to have PC ports as well. But it's still annoying to know that I'd be going for a console that is too expensive for what it is. Which is probably the main thing that's keeping me from getting a PS3.

Fragony on 17/6/2009 at 08:10

lazy port, what else is new. Difference is pretty spectacular though. It's well known that de xbox360 has more musscle, got the ps3 for the exclusives.

Andarthiel on 17/6/2009 at 09:30

Quote Posted by Koki

All this is showing me is just how awesome my PC is.

For once I agree with Koki, PC is my gaming platform of choice:D

SubJeff on 17/6/2009 at 12:52

Quote Posted by Fragony

Difference is pretty spectacular though. It's well known that de xbox360 has more musscle, got the ps3 for the exclusives.

Is that well known? I thought it was the other way around.

That video didn't reveal that much difference to me tbh. Looked like the gamma was up on the PS3 version is all. The final comparison shots were better for the XBox but is there really a difference that is that noticeable? The only other difference I noticed was the wall burning was more realistic on the PS3 in one section of the video.

Thirith on 17/6/2009 at 12:56

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

Is that well known? I thought it was the other way around.

If I'm not mistaken, the PS3 has the muscle, but it's less than programmer-friendly. From the sound of it, you could do pretty amazing stuff with it, but for most companies it's not worth the effort of getting to know the system fully.

Matthew on 17/6/2009 at 13:17

Yes, programming for the Cell architecture is allegedly a lot different from programming for a normal single- or dual-core chip.

EvaUnit02 on 17/6/2009 at 13:17

On paper the PS3's CPU (Cell) is better, but it requires more effort to optimise games properly for it, time which developers usually can't afford.

The 360's GPU is definitely superior. The PS3's RSX is basically a modified Geforce 7800GTX, but the 360's Xenos GPU was the forerunner to modern DX10 cards (pioneered unifed shader architecture), being the direct ancestor of the ATI HD2900.

Both have 512MB shared RAM, but the 360's implemented way of dedicating resources is superior.