MNicholas

do look a lot better.

That's why even developers of 360 exclusives refer to PS3 exclusives like KZ2, Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 as benchmarks.

If you know of any 360 games that the development community refers to as visual benchmarks, please list them.

But appears much more glitchy.

They must be using a simplified algorithm which trades accuracy for speed.

Probably a good decision.

Where's that demo with the talking boy who plays with the water?

;)

Why? Because Uncharted 1 didn't really use the Cell to accelerate the GPU.

Uncharted 2 quality would be highly unlikely. Not impossible (at least on PS3 version) but not at all likely.

Hulu is a service in search of a business model. All that venture capital and nothing to show for it. Very thin margins. They need to try something new. Perhaps this is it. Perhaps not. Time will tell. It will be impressive if the Hulu mgmt can convince the content partners to agree to such a thing. Then again Microsoft can buy it's way into any deal.

I could actually tell you but then you'll have to sign an NDA.

Resolution aside, SoTC had tons of next gen features such as HDR, Tone-Mapping, per object motion blur (very few next gen games have this!), Bloom, fur shading (very rare even in next gen games), bump mapping, volumetric fog, cloth simulation, etc...

This was all possible because of the PS2's vector units. Vector units are basically what GPU shaders are going to be in a couple of years.

Vector units ran pixel shaders, vertex shaders, post-processing, phy...

3D using glasses on a TV is simply too inconvenient for most people for TV watching.

Gaming, on the other hand, is an ideal medium for it but, again, mainly for certain types of games. Typical JRPGs, for example, wont provide the kind of visual incentive to drive early adopters.

It's fanboys like you who make everything about PS3 vs 360.

If you notice, my initial comment made no mention of Sony or the PS3. It was simply a statement about the 360's architecture and the game's graphics.

Then fanboys happened.

When you people ever grow up?

Many of these same sites recommended HD-DVD. Their track record of backing the right technology is poor.

As for TV reviews, many of these review sites initially appear to be very "scientific" with charts and numbers but their testing is terribly flawed and meaningless in the real world.

That's why they frequently recommend outdated technology such as double glass pane plasma panels despite significant real world drawbacks such as poor brightnes...

Samsung actually uses an inferior LED backlighting system which has less precise point contrast control.

What Samsung does best is marketing. They were the first company to advertise TVs using dynamic contrast rather than native contast. Terribly misleading but generated massive sales.

Now everyone does it.

1) The PS3 hardware is, quite simply, much more capable. No one except the most ardent xbox fanboys are arguing this point anymore.

2) RDR is built on an engine that was created on the 360 and poorly ported to the PS3.

3) The 360 graphics capability is relatively easy to max out because it's all a result of a GPU. That's why there has been no technical improvement in 360 graphics in years. Just as the PS3's RSX was maxed out back in 2007, the 3...

At least when it comes to the 360. Microsoft has relaxed resolution requirements for all developers in the hopes of getting visuals with better shading but when texture and geometry are sub-par, it still won't look that good.

The biggest flaw of the 360's hardware architecture is that it doesn't allow significant co-processing of graphics between CPU and GPU.

There are two main reasons why 3D isn't ready for prime-time.

1) Glasses required: While this is fine for 1-2 gamers playing a 3D game, for regular TV watching, I suspect most people will simply prefer the simple convenience of 2D.

2) 3D doesn't work right for a lot of people.

What's needed is a new 3D display technology but as long as we're stuck with flat panel format it's going to take some real breakthroughs in manufa...

You make a very good point.

Although we know the hardware components are cheap, the licence cost for the control software (device driver,* basically) will have to be covered by the purchase price of any hardware peripheral, be it a regular gaming controller, bluetooth adapter, or something like the Natal webcam.

The real question, therefore, is how much Microsoft is paying for a device driver?

____________

For those who don&#...

The Natal hardware itself is just a standard CMOS webcam with IR emitter. CMOS IR webcams that can operate in both bright conditions and complete darkness go for about $10-$15 online.

Let's not forget how Microsoft was charging $100 for a USB wifi adapter that costs under $5 to manufacture.

Yet there's no way to know how much they'll actually charge.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I wonder what happened to that talking boy demo. If these so called journalists get so excited about playing a game that's almost identical to PS2 Eye-toy games from many years ago, then why wouldn't Microsoft unleash the little boy demo with the jumping over rocks and water swirling and conversations?

Rather depressing. Although I didn't go to art college, I did take a few art/sculpture classes. Lovely thing to do.

@Bigpappy, you don't know what you're talking about. Quoting wiki for definitions is meaningless. All webcams have the capability to see in the dark. All you have to do is swap out the cheap plastic filter. Google solves all problems. Brand new IR emitting/receiving USB webcams can be bought for as little as $11 online.

Buy one:
5796d ago 0 agree1 disagreeView comment