Michael

I think that 1up kind of missed the point here with this article. It's great and all to say that your console is capable of much more than the other guy's (poor Nintendo), but side by side comparisons are not a great way to prove it.

Both the Xbox360 and PS3 are very different in terms of architecture, as a result developers have a few options for releasing a multiplatform game:

1) Develop the game exclusively for the X360 and exclusively again for the PS3. The result is a higher quality game on both systems but at a MUCH higher cost to the developer since they essentially developed 1.5 games. (Might even demand a complete rewrite.)

2) Build the game and then swap out various character models, environments, etc. to take better advantage of what each system has to offer. It may not use EVERYTHING each system has to offer, but it will use a fair amount of each.

Sounds great in theory, but this can lead to a lot of unforeseen problems in terms of certain sections of game code or other systems working perfectly on one but causing a massive amount of bugs on the other. Thus trapping a developer into basically trying to do #1 too late in the development cycle. Which would ultimately create a sub-par game on both systems.

3) Lower everything to the lowest common denominator between the two and use that as your "system specs." While not the solution I'm sure people are looking forward to, it can help a developer to create what will be a better game focused more on gameplay rather than pretty graphics. Or so the theory goes. It can also just create a so-so game that doesn't look or play much better than a PS2 title.

And of course there's "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Reviewers will be sure to point out the things that developers don't do and might even ignore completely the good points (that's why it's Metacritic and not Metareview). So far it seems that the only good way to do this is to remain exclusive to one platform or the other (like Gears of War). But this ALSO has problems since it limits the audience to only those who own that particular platform (hence a lot of PS3 exclusives going multi-platform).

So it's up to you how to hang yourself, because there sure is plenty of rope to do it with. The 1up article tries to use side by side comparisons to pit the two systems together. What they (and Joystiq) forgot to mention was that it's up to developers to make use (or not) of the system.

Rabidog, just because something is more powerful does not mean that it will have better graphics, sound quality, fps, etc. Ease of use for a developer to design on and experience working with said device will play much larger roles in the final outcome. Exactly as Xizer said.

As for the $50 price tag...*shrug*...not really news to anyone. That's what they cost now.

Justin, I hate to say this but there is more creativity in your joke (at least I hope it is) than in many of the new games that have flooded the market.

#2 - It has nothing to do with Bungie's ego, it's simple fact that people get so wrapped up in the game that they feel it necessary to threaten the people who work on it. It doesn't matter how big or small a game is in the "big landscape of gaming" but how that person perceives it to be.