If you want to split hairs, though, chazjamie is correct, from the technical perspective. Of course, as game engines evolve, that argument also loses weight, since the work only needs to be done once, for all of the games which share an engine. Time is just as much a factor in making a game as hardware capacity. Wouldn't stop you from being right, however. Its also tough to gauge the effect of "ease of development" on the look of a game - you could claim that the PS3 is holding 360 games back, because they need to leverage more developer resources to use the PS3's muscle to the point where it can match or exceed the 360 - you just wouldn't have any numbers, or algorithms, to back you up. Good art direction trumps pretty much all of them (except the 3D one, I suppose, if you play in 3D, since it has a huge effect on the framerate). In any case, pretty much all of the features I mentioned (60 fps interpolation, MLAA, 3D warp rendering, deferred rendering) are "extras" and not prereqs for a good looking game. Not really a surprise from tech that is a year older, and cost $100 less - actually $300 less to make - out of the gate to boot. Its true that the 360 architecture is "holding back" console games in this regard. The same thing goes for MLAA (which SPUs handle brilliantly), and for 3D warping, as opposed to having to render a complete 2nd 3D scene (again the SPUs handle it great), and deferred rendering (which can only be done via slow tiled rendering with the 360 eDRAM) There is no hidden magic inside the 360 that will ever make it able to handle this as well as the PS3. Those TRCs are in place to ensure backwards compatibility with previous 360 models - they cannot be removed.
0 kommentar(er)
