Fahme

phew...bring it on unedumacated fools!

wow-
you ps3 fanboys really are blinded by Sony's BS.
the simple fact is that it makes no business sense to optimize a game so much for a system which the creator's underestimated the importance of developer's tools and programming ease. If Sony wont throw them a bone, and the install base is not there, then EA must compromise between developing time and resources.

And i hate to break it to you, but NO, but the PS3 is NOT as graphically capable as the 360, hence the 30 fps comprimise by them AND visual concepts. If they could make it 60 and keep the detail, they would. Why would they cripple the port if games sell more with better graphics? The simple answer is the PS3 is not as capable graphically as the 360. EA could probably sped more time and code madden 08 from the ground up to make for 60 fps, but if they spent the same amount of optimizing time on the 360, it would look even BETTER STILL. NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION, GAME DEVELOPMENT, and BUSINESS LOGISTICS.

You all can keep wishing and wishing, and praying for the future to prove me wrong, but the simple matter is the 360 has a better graphics card. PERIOD. Cell cannot channel any graphical power through RSX since RSX ultimately must display everything. RSX is the bottleneck. It has a certain fill rate, the cell cannot change that. Oi, i get tired trying to explain to you fanboys how overhyped the ps3 is. It is a bargain machine for all it can do (blu ray, SACD, DVD audio, etc) but the 360 is a better games machine. Any developer who is not beholden to either company will admit this.

Oh, ad Heavenly sword, lair etc are NOT as impressive as you all say it is. Character models are compromised in HS from all ive seen. Lair looks great, but notice it's all dx 9 functionality. 360 gets closer to dx 10, not to mention it has much better anti-aliasing hardware costs due to the edram.

I never make posts to forums, but here goes:
To Henry,
You honestly make me scared about the future of computer science. I am a Political Science major and honestly know vastly more about computer architecture and the economics of software development (based on your blind faith in the PS3s CELL.

Allow me to dispel a few myths for you:
The CELL is powerful, but to say it is more powerful because of 7 cores is misleading. Those cores are NOT good for general computation which has accounted for 90% of game development to date. This leaves the strenuous portion of AI and game based computation to the 1 general purpose core. The rest of the 6 SPUs (since 1 is permanently reserved for the bloated, 64 mb memory consuming OS) must be used in similar fashion for most functions. In the future these cores will probably have dev tools that allow them to better emulate general core functions, perhaps equaling the 360s three general cores (each dual threaded). the 360s cores are not vastly powerful, and in some cases are weak as compared to out-of-order CPUs, but they are adequate. They fall in line with the current trend of multi threaded software development, making dev time more focused on making games and less on learning architecture.

To argue that CELL will have anything to do with graphics enhancement is foolish. Consider this: each SPU must be coded for DIFFERENTLY than either the general core or the RSX gpu. Though it is technically possible to use these cores for graphical computation, it would take ridiculous amounts of time to accomplish this since develoment on graphics will be multi-threaded. This is NOT the same as with SLI on PCs, which is a recent innovation in the PC world where 2 cards are used. This extends the development cycle considerably when you consider the SPUs have a VASTLY different language than the GPU. Sony's implications that the SPUs will add to vector and graphics would be more relaistic IF they provided the dev tools for it. Instead, they are more intent on Blu-Ray than developer support. This is a fatal mistake, and you are seeing the consequences; Developers do not want to spend the extra time in learning the PS3 as they did PS2 because it is NOT the leader in market presence, or for that matter sales. Instead they will make games on the proven, easy to use linked 360 and Vista platforms, and port whatever possible to the PS3. Get used to it, developers go after the bottom line as does $ony and M$.

Back to CELL, given the already difficult PS3 programming environment and lack of dev tools, these SPUs will be used to emulate the functions of general core-based computation, since it is the most efficient use of SPU power. It would be MUCH more effective to fine-tune the visuals around the GPU's capabilities rather than compound graphical language.

Furthermore, consider the fact that ANYTHING that is presented on your TV MUST go through the graphics card either RCA, component, or HDMI. It is a bottleneck in itself. What I am trying to say is DO NOT expect PS3 visuals to ever clearly best the 360's. At best, they will match, and at worst be inferior. Consider the amount of memory available to the developer- 512mb minus 4mb for OS applicable to Graphics or system. It is GDDR3 so it is in no way slow or bottlenecked over its PS3 counterparts.
Instead the PS3 is bottlenecked by its 256mb texture memory. The 192mb of system memory (taking out th OS allocated 64) cannot properly replace a lack of GDDR3. It can help, but it will NEVER properly replace GDDR3. Be prepared to see more texture compression and washed out colors because of this- and this compared to the 360 at 720p. 1080p requires DOUBLE the texture space, so expect even simpler visuals at this resolution. Note 1080p games have relatively simple textures as compared to games like Gears of War or Call of Duty which run at or near 720p. Sony was too early in trying to adopt 1080p as the standard, but it is a nice selling point. The truth is most developers will choose excellent textures and effects at 720p instead of clarity and definition in 1080p for the simple fact most TV aren't even HD, and 1080p sets can still make 720p look good. When you downscale 1080p to 720p, it still looks great, but you still have the same limited texture and effect sets. The problem persists in SD. Epic, a VERY experienced developer has gone on record saying the graphics in GoW cannot be equally duplicated on the PS3, perhaps close, but not equaled. This is a matter of the 360s 512mb of variably allocatable memory coming into play. That's not even accounting for the fact that it is firmly established amongst the PC and tech community, of which the RSX and Xenos are derived from, that Xenos is more powerful for most gaming environments, with a more advanced feature set providing better shaders, HDR, etc(DX9 vs near- DX10). Add to that the blazing EDRAM which can offload huge amounts of work from the GPU in effects, and you have no contest here- anything Sony says otherwise is fudging the numbers.

I must emphasize this next point, forgive the caps lock: THE ONLY REASON THE PS3 IS MORE EXPENSIVE AND RELEASED AFTER THE 360 IS THE EXTRA FEATURES SONY THOUGH WE MIGHT WANT NOT GAMING CAPABILITY. This includes the cost of bluray diodes, Bluetooth and wireless. From a logistical standpoint, the PS3 is a much better value: BluRay, Hard drive, Bluetooth expansion, wireless 802.11g, and comparable (though ultimately inferior) gaming components. BUT, it is a gaming system first, and M$ seems to know this. They are going after games and gamers, not multimedia enthusiasts.

I had PS1 and PS2 from day 1 of each. PS3 I'm sorry to say is a disappointment. Not only was it delayed by bluray, but the escalating costs of development have ultimately forced developers to dispel exclusivity in favor of the almighty dollar. Had it come out months before the 360 with the same features minus Bluray and a friendlier processor, and at 299$ (bluray was about the $300 cost to the system), the PS3 would be the best gaming value on the market and continue its dominance. Unfortunately, $ony lost track of what put it in its dominant gaming position: the casual gamers of the world. Guess realized this and is capitalizing as we speak: NINTENDO.

We should be applauding Nintendo for the amazing turnaround from the N64 days. They did it with games and innovation, not technology. Furthermore, they make money on hardware from day 1, quite a feat. Yes, their visuals are last gen. But ask your average 8-20 year old, and they are adequate enough for the game to take precedence over the graphics. Numbers speak louder than words in the world of business, and I'm afraid Sony is down for the count. Be ready to see MS overtake Sony by the next generation of games. They have positioned themselves incredibly well with the 360 - enough to continue the XBOX line and ultimately make up all of the lost capital (they're still down a couple billion on they're gaming line). Furthermore, consider the related DirectX language they are sharing between PC and 360. I don't think i need to explain where this is going. I will say gamers can look forward to an expansion of the types of games we'll be able to play, as PC and the Xbox line continue to evolve together (Half-Life 2 anyone?).

Sorry about my long post, but I had a lot to say. Feel free to correct me people, but keep it logical!