I agree, that before the graphics up the ante, there has to be an amazing game to go along side. I do hope that the games that have yet to come to the PlayStation 3 are great games and have amazing graphics. And, if I were to choose between which to come first, as I'm sure everybody else would answer the same, a great game would come first. That's why we play games anyways, right? To have fun, to get away, not exactly to see something pretty while not having a great time.
And, even if the 360 does announce some great exclusives during the course of next year, who says that PlayStation can't as well?
Ah, back to my rambling again...
And, even if the 360 does announce some great exclusives during the course of next year, who says that PlayStation can't as well?
Ah, back to my rambling again...
Only Sony fanboys and people who have no idea about GPU hardware think the PS3 is capable of beating the 360 in terms of graphics. The Xenos boasts more advanced features than the RSX. The RSX is based on geforce 7 technology - old technology. The Xenos is based on modern GPU tech.
Nvidia GPU's sold for the PC today are not based on the older RSX tech, but instead are built more like the Xenos. The Xenos supports FP16 HDRR and AA at the same time. The RSX does not. The Xenos has access to more than 256MB of GDDR. The RSX does not. The Xenos can achieve 4xAA @720p with little to no performance hit. The RSX can't say that.
Blu-ray has a higher capacity than DVD9. This means it can house larger textures, but... A texture still has to fit within the available VRAM while being processed for output; meaning if it is to large to fit, it will be compressed anyways.
And as a PS3 owner, I don't understand why everyone thinks MGS4 looks so stunning. It is rather bland and flat if you ask me. For example: wall textures look flat and do not give the illusion of having a touchable texture. There are other PS3 games that look better if you ask me.
As for gameplay, i agree its more important than graphics. Which is why I have bought more XBLA and PSN games than full retail games; because the fun they provide is worth the price.
Nvidia GPU's sold for the PC today are not based on the older RSX tech, but instead are built more like the Xenos. The Xenos supports FP16 HDRR and AA at the same time. The RSX does not. The Xenos has access to more than 256MB of GDDR. The RSX does not. The Xenos can achieve 4xAA @720p with little to no performance hit. The RSX can't say that.
Blu-ray has a higher capacity than DVD9. This means it can house larger textures, but... A texture still has to fit within the available VRAM while being processed for output; meaning if it is to large to fit, it will be compressed anyways.
And as a PS3 owner, I don't understand why everyone thinks MGS4 looks so stunning. It is rather bland and flat if you ask me. For example: wall textures look flat and do not give the illusion of having a touchable texture. There are other PS3 games that look better if you ask me.
As for gameplay, i agree its more important than graphics. Which is why I have bought more XBLA and PSN games than full retail games; because the fun they provide is worth the price.
when software is programmed well it can make alot of difference. Besides that In the end what matters is the full architecture of a system, not just a GPU. You can have an outstanding powerfull piece of hardware in your system, but if for instance your bus can't provide sufficient data dragged between a specific time from one piece of your hardware to the other it will still be the bottleneck.












