Feature-wise, the PC version is pretty much the lesser of the three. I wouldn't recommend it at all.Mornelithe said:
Ghostbuster's Image Quality Suffers on PlayStation 3
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Is there any way to put that post in english? I R not technology literate. All I know is the bigger numbers the better. And that everyone says the PS3 is technologically superior. So to hear that the 360 has more available RAM than the PS3 (what does the PS3 have more RAM that isn't available but is just sitting there for show?) is quite confusing.Mornelithe said:
yes the ps3 has certain parts of the ram dedicated, so in theory it's faster and better cause it's not sharing everythingMornelithe said:
as for the issue of ram, you are forgetting that the os in the systems is very minimal so the amount of ram needed is negligent really, it's not like you have a bloated os with poor memory management that it needs 2 gigs of ram to even run the most basic of applications.
the ps3 also sets aside a certain amount of ram just for the os to run
Ahh good. I am a 360 owner and going to forums like here I always feel like I am missing out on something truly fantastic that the PS3 can do that the 360 can't (other than the blu ray thing which means jack to me since I only have an SD TV). Although I do disagree with the PC having some kind of limitation. I have a couple friends who are upgrading thier PCs to ungodly amounts (like terabytes of memory and 8 gbs ram and other just craziness) That I always bug them about. I keep telling them what good is it when the software won't utilize it. But it games on the PC will be amazing once devs do start building games for those kinds of insane specs.Mornelithe said:
I think it's cause they try to cap the visual quality of a multiplatform games that's on 360 and PS3. The 360 can't get as high a visual quality as the PS3 and rather than max out the different version to their full potential cause that would seem biased, they try to evenly match both versions.
I assume that is a PC thing. And the thing with PCs is the tech is constantly evolving. Where the consoles are kinda stuck at a certain point that no one will be able to break through the glass ceiling (until the next next gen comes along)Mornelithe said:
There isn't any single cross platform game that look better on the PS3 than on the Xbox360, as it has been proven many, many times. The gamespot annual graphic comparison, Lens of Truth and every others, they all came to the same conclusions: either it's equal, or 360 has the advantage.
The guy that was the chief engineer for the Cell AND the Xenon said that both were about the same power, but the Xenon has two advantages: it is simpler to optimize, and it can fare deal better with open worlds such as GTA, Fallout, etc. However, to his words, the PS3 CAN offer more than 360 for linear worlds, like the incredibly beautiful Uncharted 2.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php
Crytek can also support this: they claim that they maximized both consoles, and in the end, the difference is too minimal to take into account.
http://gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23898
All in all, they are equally powerful consoles, but the PS3 costs much more and offer less quality in games in general, so your decision should mostly revolve around which exclusives you prefer and if you want to pay for a weak, 1x BluRay player. Not that long ago, RRoD was certainly a problem to take into account, but this isn't that much of a problem anymore with the new 60go model.
And for those who shamelessly accuse the developpers of being lazy assholes and such infamy, please STFU. These brave people work freaking hard, with long crunch times forcing them to work over 60 hours a week. Chances are that they work much harder than you do, so stop complaining, and be grateful that some first party HELP them, by offering better devkits and consoles that are simple to code for.
The guy that was the chief engineer for the Cell AND the Xenon said that both were about the same power, but the Xenon has two advantages: it is simpler to optimize, and it can fare deal better with open worlds such as GTA, Fallout, etc. However, to his words, the PS3 CAN offer more than 360 for linear worlds, like the incredibly beautiful Uncharted 2.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php
Crytek can also support this: they claim that they maximized both consoles, and in the end, the difference is too minimal to take into account.
http://gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23898
All in all, they are equally powerful consoles, but the PS3 costs much more and offer less quality in games in general, so your decision should mostly revolve around which exclusives you prefer and if you want to pay for a weak, 1x BluRay player. Not that long ago, RRoD was certainly a problem to take into account, but this isn't that much of a problem anymore with the new 60go model.
And for those who shamelessly accuse the developpers of being lazy assholes and such infamy, please STFU. These brave people work freaking hard, with long crunch times forcing them to work over 60 hours a week. Chances are that they work much harder than you do, so stop complaining, and be grateful that some first party HELP them, by offering better devkits and consoles that are simple to code for.
I can only assume that most if not all games are coded using the intel chip though. And they have to make the program think in the way of the cell which would be kind of unnatural. (I apologize for the layman terms). Isn't it possible that it has just as much to do with the software that is hindering the power of the cell (as well as it being so new and devs are trying to wrap thier grey matter around it).Mornelithe said: