Epiphany

I guess that's why almost every Xbox title used FSAA to a great degree, and all X360 games will use it 100% of the time, while displaying everything at a 720p minimum resolution.

The Xbox has an OS.

Because the fact that the Xbox has 64 megs of shared memory, and is capable of running games that a computer with the exact same specs couldn't begin to think about running. You simply don't understand the fundamental concept that consoles aren't personal computers. Says the guy that refutes everything he doesn't understand.

Rumble Roses is a prime example of this. I've read that the Japanese gamers ate that game up, and are really into the X360 version...

In a non anal sense, the PS3 doesn't have a custom built GPU, since it's just an overclocked 6800Ultra, the Xbox didn't have a truely custom built GPU, since it was just a slightly modified GeForce 3. Yet, when compared on gaming standards, Xenos is a better gaming CPU than Cell is. Nvidia is already making their USA cards for the next-gen PC GPU's, so they aren't very skeptical. It was too early when it was a taped release, but the cards are in the kits, the cards are functional, and the cards are working, at an optimal level as well. USA is the future of GPU processing, it's a fail proof way to maximize GPU clock cycles for shading operations. Since you aren't in the industry, whether you buy into the "generations ahead of PC GPU's" comment or not, does not change the fact that not a single person that has direct knowledge of Xenos has commented otherwise. The GPU is a monster, the eDRAM, and the USA put it leagues ahead what's out now, and what's coming in 2006. Seeing as how there are a grand total of 12 possible games that aren't BC, I don't see the point of your bitching. The PS2 does not play every single PS1 game. I've thought all along that you're illiterate, and the fact that you failed to post in, or even read the several PS3 feature threads I posted is evidence of that. Congrats, you failed.

It's combat oriented in a way, since there are sixteen battles in the entire game, but they are puzzle solving battles, sort of like how Ico was a puzzle game with a bit of combat. Navigating the large beasts are the puzzle aspect, and fighting them is a matter of completing the puzzle and attacking various points on their massive bodies. From what I've read, and from the demo, it's not a quick experience, as getting through each colossus is a game in itself. Stop screwing up my thread with your ignorance. You've stated you know squat about the game, and even commented that you've never heard of it until now. So your knowledge about the beauty of this game is equal to that of my dog, and he doesn't know much except that his toy bone is fun to chew on, and he gets in trouble if he poops in the house. Go away.

lol

Minor step forward??? LOL The X360 is a technical powerhouse, with a custom built GPU that is ground breaking and generations ahead of any GPU on the market or coming to the market in the next year, and a CPU that was tailored to run video game code with extreme ease.

It appears as though the TGS was a bigger success for the Xbox 360 than Sony fanboys previously wanted people to believe. From the latest Famitsu:

That can't be right, can it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> People have said all along that PS3 development would be ultra expensive. Many reports have also stated that the average next gen title would have similar production values to an average hollywood movie, so 17.6 million + the 50+ million it could take to make a decent game could simply be more than what small developers are willing to spend. MS is waiving all of their licensing fees if the game being developed is console exclusive - which I'm sure Sony may do if the trend continues, or if they get no exclusive 3rd party titles other than the yearly contributions of DMC and MGS.

The translation of the other article, combined with the secondary one, point that the investment of 17.6 million is just to start the project. Developers are ready to create, as is shown by all the titles announced for the X360, and the few that have so far been announced for the PS3. It's just that PS3 development costs are going to be so high, that many developers are looking elsewhere. It won't be $500 for the graphics tech, as it does nothing special, it'll be $500+ because of blu-ray. Gossip or not, many Japanese companies are announcing games for the X360, and several of those games are exclusive ones. While some of the games may not be the "best games ever" the mere fact they're exclusive is a big step.

link If this is true, once XNA rolls out, things could get even worse for the PS3. edit: Relating to console exclusives - this by no means the PS3 will disappear, but if true, it will mean there will be very few 3rd party exclusive titles on the system.

Well, I'm not sure about the rest of the human race, but the people in my city/state live longer than 1 day. :|

When the PS3 is released for over $399 - then you'll see the savings. DID I SAY IT WAS A GOOD THING? Do you even read what is written, or do you just throw thoughts/words into people's post to try and pick them apart because you have no substance to your thoughts otherwise? Both consoles are not pretty similar. Their architecture is completely different. The X360 was built with gaming in mind first. Xenon was strictly built as a gaming CPU, with various instruction shortcuts that get rid of tedious gaming code. Xenos was built with gaming in mind, on a brand new architecture that also allows developers to do more, since a USA approach will always be superior to a structured pipeline that doesn't run at optimal efficiency. 512 meg of shared RAM is better than being stuck with only 256 for video and 256 for the system. It gives developers more choices, which is what they need in order to provide gamers with their "visions" for games. If they only need 128 for video, then they can use the rest for streaming data, if they need 356 for video, then they can have it. How are giving developers options worse than saying you only get one option for video and system? Your logic is flawed. The cell was architectured to be a workstation CPU, not a gaming one. It's FLOP performance, vs ALU performance is evidence of that. Nvidia bailed the console out by giving them the RSX, which at least allows the console to push "next gen" graphics, but the poor ALU performance on Cell leaves the console on the short end of the stick for everything that's not FLOP - mainly AI. MGS4 was a cinematic trailer - it was purely scripted down to the last bit of dust. Yes it was kinda pretty, but it is not representative of gameplay, unless, of course, you want to play 100% scripted games where you have no effect on the outcome... The PS3 doesn't lack graphical power, it lacks the power to compete with the X360 on all almost all other fronts.

If a game has poor graphics, I don't play it. It's boring to look at, and completely takes away from any immersive aspect I might have while gaming. Much like I don't buy games (rarely even play them) that don't support 16:9 and at least 480p in this current generation. Graphics are what you look at for 15+ hours of your life. I don't care how great the story/gameplay is, if it's a visual nightmare, I lose interest. The color palette has to work and the visuals have to be such that it doesn't look like a VGA game on my TV.

Because the I play video games, not games.

No.

I still stick behind their DVD-9 choice - it keeps cost down, and still provides the ability to have hella large games with boat loads of FMV since you can swap media during gameplay. I think the console will easily compete and win on a technological point, since it's a better gaming platform to begin with. As games start to roll out, and people realize that the 360 is putting out higher quality products, on average, the whole disc medium will go unnoticed.