Why do multi-platform games end up better on 360? Explained

Gamersmint: PS3 cell architecture has been a tricky one, before the PS3 launched many developers were pessimistic about it. Valve had been most vocal about it, trashing the PS3 till recently. No one knew how to code properly for the Cell processor and its split memory architecture.

Sony had mentioned later that it did it on purpose to separate the good devs from the average ones, but was that the right thing to do?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Karooo2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

very nice read, learnt many new things

FACTUAL evidence2860d ago

Devs don't want to take the time to learn the ps3 architecture, and then when they finally try to do something on the ps3 they complain they can't handle the power. So basically, they end up porting their half baked game to the ps3, and try to optimize it as much as they can(which is really nothing)so it could "work" on the ps3. We all know RAM/CPU isn't the problem either.

We all have seen games like KZ3, uncharted 2, infamous 2, GOW3. It's up to the devs to take time. Not saying only 1st party does good, but even EA/activision stepped up the game with near identical ports.

ico922860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

Its also the fact that the 360's architecture is similar to that of the PC, bottom line its up to the developers when developers really work hard they can really produce great ports, Bioshock, Cod, GTA4,RE5,and Dragon age/oblivion are perfect examples

Immortal3212860d ago

then they got the nerve to demand equality, when most ps3 exclusive play and look way better.

HolyOrangeCows2860d ago

Castlevania? Fallout New Vegas? (Do NOT tell me that AA is a fair trade off for those horrid textures) FF13?

Things definitely aren't as bad as they used to be.

gamingdroid2860d ago

It's also a fact that developer resources are limited and making a somewhat developer unfriendly console isn't doing Sony any favors. Sony might have gotten away with it when they dominated the market, but the competitive landscape has significantly changed since then.

NecrumSlavery2860d ago

Bioshock, RE5, & DA:O were overall equal or better on PS3. But look at Castlevania & Vanquish, both lead on PS3 and it helps the 360 in the end in multiplatform performance.

Anton Chigurh2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

RE5 and Bishock looks like sh!t on the PS3 (low FPS and sub hd). Vanquish looks the same on both consoles except that the Xbox360 has AA, which is not a big problem.

darthv722860d ago

360 lead: port to ps3 is shoddy
ps3 lead: port to 360 nearly equal

Answer should be ps3 as lead to make both versions as good and impressive as they can.

This gen is far more closer than any previous. I can almost bet it wont be that way again. We are not talking snes vs genesis here.

Information Minister2860d ago

@ Factual - I don't think that's entirely fair towards developers. Some devs don't take the time to learn the achitecture because they simply don't have time to spare. Others lack the talent and/or the budget to do so. Working with the PS3 architecture can produce outstanding results, but you have to put more effort into it.

NastyLeftHook12860d ago

if i am not mistaken...

Oblivion is better on ps3.

Bioshock is

Bioshock 2 is


vanquish is

castlevania los is

batman arkham asylum is

split second is

candystop2860d ago

Not to sure about Vanquish but Oblivion and Bioshock did not look better on the PS3. Oblivion was even missing grass and such on PS3.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2860d ago
PS360fanboy2860d ago

Intresting question by the author...SOny invested a lot in PS3's newest technology, yet they gave the console a "primitive" graphics processor compared to the Xenos.

If this wasn't the case, the PS3 would have been a state of the art beast(but probably would have sot even more than what it did at launch=/)!

Jdoki2860d ago

First off the GPU in the PS3 is not a million miles behind the Xenos. It is less powerful, but the gap is not as massive as the article suggests.

Second, the reason Sony used such a 'primitive' GPU is that the intention was originally to use the Cell for all processing - but that didn't work out so Sony needed a GPU fast - they got a pretty stock Nvidia part.

However, without the Nvidia GPU I suspect the PS3 would have been even more difficult to code for. So Sony's 'blunder' has probably helped in the long run.

Ju2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

Vector units is what made gaming great in the past. It was new with the PS2, and shader units are nothing else than massive vector processors (evolution from fixed function set to programable cores).

With that mindset, Sony might have thought, the CELL has a extremely fast vector core and thus there is no need for an ultra fast GPU. These tasks could have offloaded to the SPUs.

The was the original idea. They missed that bit, that those vector ops moved more and more into the GPU. Theoretically, with a real fast vector core a GPU is not really necessary.

Anyhow, lately, GPU and SPUs merge more and more (which the latest multiplatform games pretty much underline). I would guess, also because the dev tools are getting better and make SPU and GPU usage more transparent. It took Sony an eternity to come up with a solution; but it was also clear, that with the HW tech available at the time, and a console the only variable which can change over time is SW.

I think we see platform parity now; I am curious if we will ever see this trend getting pushed further. Multiplatform titles reaching levels only exclusive title do so far. I think this is possible; and I also think exclusives are not reaching their peak yet. 5 more years to go.

MS took the "easy" route, had better optimized SW (tools and OS) to begin with (well, they are a SW company first and foremost; VS & DX are established high end solutions) but after all that time, there is also less headroom. I can also think that MS limits HW access on purpose - the advantage, because of that they can guarantee the games will probably run on their next platform as well (and gives them more freedom to change the HW beneath). But to harness this, they almost must release a new HW at some point, while Sony can work with the same longer doing cost optimizations only.

If Sony can improve their dev tool to basically give you an API which hides the SPU & GPU in a black box, this "next generation" is basically just a SW upgrade on the same HW. With a virtual GpGPU hiding what is done where, essentially.

ProjectVulcan2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

Nvidia were drafted in relatively late on in PS3's design to bring a GPU to the party after sony realised use of another CELL as a GPU was not going to be sufficient. Rather than build a custom solution like Ati did for microsoft, they took an existing GPU design and shoehorned it into PS3. Problem was they didnt preserve its full specs either, castrating the memory bus and ROP count assumedly to improve the yields of the chip and reduce costs.

Although it is a split pipe design, had it retained its 256bit memory bus and 16 ROPs it would be considerably faster than the final configuration PS3 uses, especially when it comes to functions like anti aliasing, RSX is rather crippled. Not only that when first announced RSX was supposed to run @ 550mhz core/shaders, but the final version inside PS3 actually only runs 500mhz on the core, another decision taken quite late to improve yields and reduce costs. The graphics memory also took a hit from an original 700mhz speed down to 650mhz, reducing the graphics memory bandwidth further.

RSX is a weak link in the machine compared directly to xenos in 360, its just up to developers to squeeze CELL for the extra performance. Only developers determined to learn how to programme PS3 efficiently are capable of this.

nycredude2860d ago

I would think if you are going to develop for and release a game on a certain platform regardless of which one, you should be "determined to learn how to program for the platform efficiently".

So you the real problem is the developers, not the machine.

I mean you guys can't really expect both machines to be exactly the same do you? Then what do we need both for?

ProjectVulcan2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

Take the comment in the context it was expressed.

''RSX is a weak link in the machine compared directly to xenos in 360, its just up to developers to squeeze CELL for the extra performance. Only developers determined to learn how to programme PS3 efficiently are capable of this.''

Was the full paragraph. Meaning in order to just MATCH multiplatform game code on 360, CELL has to be exploited heavily, and ''determined developers'' could also be interchangeable for ''developers with enough time, or developers with enough money.'' Both of which are very much at a premium this generation, more so than ever before.

If only it were as simple as lazy developers, the games industry being a business it involves money and money means time. PS3 is not the dominant platform playstation 1 and 2 were, thus there is less money to be made on a playstation version, less motivation and userbase to make sure the game is perfect, cheaper, faster and easier to cater for 360 and shovel a quick and cheap port onto PS3.

The only way this would be fixed permanently is if PS3 becomes the dominant userbase for HD games this generation and draws developer focus. Until then there are likely to always be inferior ports on PS3, even though luckily the situation has improved it is likely to persist until the conditions i outlined alter dramatically.

Ju2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

" Meaning in order to just MATCH multiplatform game code on 360, CELL has to be exploited heavily,"

Well, yes, of course. If you want to maintain a high standard on the 360 you would expect a dev to harness all the HW built in the machine, either, wouldn't you?

Why is this surprising, that "to match that" one would need to use the all of the PS3, not just a part of it?

And, it is a myth that Sony planed a second CELL as a graphics chips. I highly doubt that. Yes, Sony tried to do an inhouse graphics chip. I would guess here this was more in line with a SuperGS (a super rasterizer) similar what was found in the PS2; because Sony though the SPUs will do the heavy vector ops anyhow, a high bandwidth raster engine is sufficient. This makes much more sense from a design perspective. Such a chip would have handled all ROPs and memory block transfer needed for fast pixel operations; and maybe some more SPUs for internal graphic work (similar to MIPS/VMU1+VMU2/GS in the PS2). A second CELL doesn't make sense at all.

Those plans for such a chip (no matter what it really was) were scraped because of performance issues of the chip and so Sony used a standard chip instead.

raztad2860d ago

I'm not that much into technical details, but I dont think Sony removed the second Cell because it wasnt enough. I think it was about making the PS3 a developer friendly machine. I cant imagine the nightmare if 2 cells instead of a GPU were used.

"RSX is a weak link in the machine compared directly to xenos in 360, its just up to developers to squeeze CELL for the extra performance."

Cell is the central element in the PS3 arch. I dont think the platform was crippled/rushed or an afterthought as you may be suggesting. All the contrary, The Cell BE was put in the middle of the arch in a way that if you want to get the best out of the PS3 you need to squeeze the Cell "for the extra performance". This is not a CON, it is just the way the system was built.

Lord of Shadow showed what a good multiplat devel can do on the PS3, but still GoW3 blows it away.

ProjectVulcan2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

''Why is this surprising, that "to match that" one would need to use the all of the PS3, not just a part of it?''

Only surprising if you are unaware of RSX being a crippled NV47 and slower than Xenos. Which i outlined. Which it is.

Its not a myth sony had greater plans for CELL design, it cost them 2 billion dollars to develop. CELL is after all, a scalable design, purposefully so. Being able to break down CELL into component parts was a key design goal, so enabling variable configurations for customisable applications.

''dont think the platform was crippled/rushed or an afterthought as you may be suggesting''

Im not suggesting the platform was crippled, im saying RSX WAS crippled. I dont see how there can be any argument it WASNT crippled. Nvidia took the NV47 design, and chopped half of its memory bus off and the ROPs that go along with that. The fact of the matter remains that RSX does not have enough bandwidth without sharing across CELL's memory bus to operate near peak efficiency. To compound that nvidia even upped the clocks on NV47, great if you have the memory bandwidth, questionable if you dont.

Besides all that i also pointed out that by the time 360 had been released, NV47 was already beaten on Pc by the superior radeon R520 architecture that was not only faster per clock but allowed simultaneous FP HDR with multisample anti aliasing. This was nearly an entire year before PS3 even hit stores. Even if you give back RSX a 256 bit bus and all its ROPs for AA, it cant physically do what Xenos can do, instead being reduced to compromise modes like NOA32 or the well known and universally disliked quincunx.

RSX is a DX9 class GPU, with all the limitations nvidia GPUs at the time suffered. Xenos is a custom quasi DX10 class GPU, incorporating unifed shader hardware and even programmable tesselation, which was then to be mandatory for the unreleased DX10 spec. Course predating DX10 it isnt actually full DX10 hardware, but its at least a half generation ahead of RSX even though 360 is a year older. Such was Ati's design lead at the time (2005) It shares elements that were later incorporated in future Ati designs.

It certainly didnt help at all that when ati came out and showed their unified architecture in 360, nvidia dismissed that wasnt really the future and not necessarily the best path. Ati said otherwise. Shame that for DX10 spec it was mandatory and by the time PS3 got out the door, nvidia had the first PC consumer GPU with a unified design! They fobbed sony off with RSX, is how i see it. Ps3 should have a DX10 class GPU based on the Geforce 8 series in it. Instead despite being out a year later, it has an older GPU design than 360. Think about that.

Computersaysno2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

Is mind boggling nvidia 8800 was out before PS3. Meant there was plenty of time to make such a chip for PS3. I know Ps3 was delayed becos of bluray diodes, but still to launch a year after xbox 360 with a lesser graphics unit is weird and shouldnt have happened. Gotta blame someone for that.

raztad2860d ago

I'm not saying RSX is as capable of Xenos but it is clear to me two things:

1) You dont redesign a console only because a new chip is out. There is a lot R&D involved and you are making it to look like it the decision of going with the RSX was made overnight.

2) It is clear the GPU is there to help The Cell and no the other way around. Quincux is a cheap tech available to devels early on the PS3 life cycle. MLAA is a fairly superior solution possible due to the raw calculation power of the Cell BE.

nickjkl2860d ago

what most gamers dont realize is that game developers dont really have coders

their mostly texture artists animation artists 3d artists and then theirs the scripts basic scripts in most cases that even i can do such as

triggering when something happens
to interact with objects etc

but the coding of gpu and cpu is not as high as a priority to video game developers until recently

ProjectVulcan2859d ago (Edited 2859d ago )

A GPU like RSX is a fairly drop in component. Im not saying they just knocked it out and bunged it in quick, im saying that it was chosen because it was an existing complete design and easy option when the initial plan failed. Sony did not have much say in the design of the chip, because its not a custom design intended only for PS3, unlike Xenos and 360.

As for the theory that RSX is there to assist the CPU, thats a bit of an ass backward way to design a games machine. The GPU is the key component in rasterization, the KEY chip. CELL is an unusual central processor alright, but its still absolutely no match for a proper GPU when it comes to basic graphics tasks- lacking even a basic dot production instruction. Specialised hardware acceleration beats software rendering/emulation hands down. Every. Single. Time.

The whole anti aliasing deely is the main weakness of the machine i would say. Because RSX does not have enough bandwidth, because it has only 8 ROPs, because this generation games have emphasised high end features like FP HDR, its ability to anti alias said games are severly restricted due almost entirely to RSX's NV47 heritage. MLAA is not a feature you can just enable and get predictable results for performance and image quality(its a software solution after all), whereas FP10 HDR + MSAA on Xenos, is.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2859d ago
iPad2860d ago

Square Enix said porting games to the 360 is a lot easier because it has less processing power.

Active Reload2860d ago

That doesn't make any sense.

emitsomla2860d ago

seperate the good devs from the bad one, devs are lazy, devs don't know the architecture... this is all BS!!! Simple fact that both consoles have advantanges over the other, and the devs try to use those advantages when it comes to multiplat games. It just so happens that the 360's Graphix card is more powerful than the ps3, so therefor multiplat games tend to look better on the 360. I put it to you this way, if uncharted, or killzone was on the 360, it would look better on the 360. And sony fanboys please don't say, killzone or uncharted, cant be done on the 360, because that is TOTAL BS! it just so happens that those devs are very good at what they do in terms of graphics and animations.

MisterAV2860d ago

ps3 exclusive can do that because of the CELL.
the 360 has the cell? no
has a normal cpu and a good gpu. But even the 360 gpu has some serious cap like that 10mb memory that need many games to go subHD to have good AA. And just saying cell can do MLAA, and it's better....

candystop2860d ago Show
emitsomla2860d ago

The 360 has multiple main dualcores that devs can do wonders with just as devs utilize the cell. After 5 years it's about time fanboys get off the ps3's cell's nutsacq

Ju2860d ago

Makes me wonder if the 360 doesn't have any developers with talent since we haven't seen anything like UC2 or KZ3 on that platform, yet. Either that, or it can't be done. Pick one.

SaberEdge2860d ago

Please show me a developer of the caliber of Naughty Dog or Guerrilla under Microsoft's umbrella. They don't exist. Lionhead isn't going to do it. Rare isn't going to do it.

I don't know what the truth is about the relative power of each console, but I do know that the lack of technically knowledgeable exclusive 360 developers is a big part of the problem.

nickjkl2860d ago

emit obviously doesnt know the difference between a

cell processor
1 ppe multithreaded giving instructions to 8 spus running at 3.2ghz each


3 cores 3.2 ghz multithreaded

the xenon is basically 3 ppe in the ps3 without the spu where it gets its power from

raztad2860d ago


I knew you guys would prefer to blame MS devels :). Dont forget Turn 10.

It is kinda funny that being the xbox 360 the easier, older and with the most capable GPU developers are struggling that much to keep pace with PS3's best.

I'm curios to see what the famed Crytek can accomplish on xbox. They said consoles are maxed out, but I dont think Crysis 2 will look better than KZ3.

emitsomla2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

Have seen Gears 3's campaign right... Gears 3 definately looks better than uncharted 2, so your point of the 360 not being able to produce UC2 graphics has now become rediculous... You guys really need to stop being weird because you are begining to sound like some sick cult.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2860d ago
zeddy2860d ago

i knew it! those lazy ass devs! but in all seriousness you cant make the ps3 lead platform because the 360 can only handle 7gigs they would have to knock off a lot of content from the ps3 version. tis why i love ps3 exclusives.

harrysmith2860d ago

They don't because its just internet lies to make the PS3 look bad.

Darrius Cole2860d ago

I had forgotten how much better looking PS3 exclusives were. I thought I knew but I had truly forgotten.

For the past two or three months I have been playing Final Fantasy XIII. It is pretty,..very pretty. It has wonderful graphics and great art direction.

A kid (actually he is 18 but that doesn't matter, an 18 year-old is still a kid) who goes to my church saw me play GOW3 back in March and I let him start his own game. This Sunday after church I let him come to my house to continue his game. I turned it on for him went into the back room. I came back up front to find him at the scene with Aphrodite. I WAS GOB-SMACKED.

After two-plus months of playing Final Fantasy XIII, I had become unaware at just how much better looking PS3 exclusives are. GOW3 is miles better looking than even a PS3-first multi-plat like FFXIII. Remember Square-Enix had to gimp the 360 version of FF13 in order to keep the same experience. But even with that FFXIII(PS3) doesn't approach the graphical quality of GOW3, and I know that is saying a lot.

Why don't multi-plat games end up better on 360? Because the 360 is closer to the lowest common denominator, pure and simple.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2859d ago
gameseveryday2860d ago

This was the case two years ago, I dont think its happening now.

cyborg2860d ago

newer titles like Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock 2 and Bayonetta, all performed much better in the Xbox 360. Most recent case was Mafia II. cough...grass...cough

Nitrowolf22860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )


although it sounds like he/she is trying to do some sort of damage he/she isn't wrong. But the thing is like this article explains, most if not all are ports. What about games where PS3 is lead? I am not sure but wasn't Lord of Shadow leading on PS3 then ported to 360? And notice there the difference isn't much as you would see with 360 port to PS3. Even with MoH, although the game had terrible screen tearing and lots of issue on both games they nearly look identicle. EA i believe stated that their lead console will be PS3 for now on to avoid these kind of mistakes, but the reason i don't think many other devs do it, is time. Developing for the 360 is a lot faster then developing for the PS3. Which is probably due to that year they had with the 360 alone and gotten use to it more, understanding how to make games.

And personally about Sony saying they did it on purpose, who knows if it was the right Move. They manage to buy Media Molecule, developer strong relationship with third party Insomiac, Got 21 studios working for them exclusively. Manage to get new IP like Demon Souls, Uncharted, Resistance, Infamous, ect.
I think it was a great move, even though many third party games are inferior it's exclusive games is were it shows the different.

To me that sounds like they made the right choice.

i mean the way i see, third party devs that make use of the PS3 Power tend to continue to work on the it even when they are making Multiplat games. They seem to put more effort into trying to make games look identicle rather then porting and doing minor tweaks.

Cold 20002860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

Enslaved and Dead Risisng 2 too!

below: well the 360 versions were pretty good. Not too sure about the crappy PS3 ports though.

Silly gameAr2860d ago (Edited 2860d ago )

Wow Cold 2000. That's so awesome!

Well, I'd better buy the 360 versions for something I would need a microscope to see. That's what matters right?

raztad2860d ago

While it is true the PS3 port was the worst offender, Mafia 2 was a disaster on consoles. The game performs horridly, with framerates dropping sub 20.

Read Dead Redemption was not bad on PS3, slightly sub-hd, with some less detail. It actually was a decent improvement over GTA4.

I wonder which was the worst offender, RDR on PS3 or FFXIII on xbox?

nycredude2860d ago

Seriously though do you guys see a difference when you play these games? Does it take away from your enjoyment of those games? If you have only one console, would those differences be enough for you to go buy another just to play the "superior" version? Would we even notice the difference if it wasn't for fps loggers and these site running side by side test?

In almost every case of these difference, it only feeds the fanboys in the industry. I mean just a couple of short years ago we weren't getting graphics like these days and now we complain when two versions of one game is not identical on two completely different platforms? Do you guys know how hard it is to make two different version of a game identical on the Ps3 and 360, with different architecture.

Let's face it if these little differences were so important PC would be the preferred gaming platform (BY FAR), not consoles.

jack_burt0n2860d ago


Castlevania, vanquish, TFU2, UNS2, MOH all much better on ps3.

bioshock 2 was better on ps3 it actually had vsync.

SaberEdge2860d ago

JackBurton, you're silly. Castlevania and Vanquish are not "much better" on the PS3. Castlevania has a slightly higher framerate on PS3 and Vanquish has no screen tearing on PS3 whereas the 360 version has a little screen tearing. In neither case is it a huge difference.

On the other hand The Force Unleashed was actually a little better on the 360. I played both demos and the PS3 version had more screen tearing. Bioshock 2 was also better on the 360. Go read the comparisons.

I haven't played both versions of MOH so I have no opinion on that.

Ju2860d ago

Fact is, things change from "mp will always be worse on the PS3" to "bu..bu..they are only slightly better". Quite an inverted trend IMO. This is apparent with current games only (like, games releasing now - not 2 month ago). I think this will further improve on future PS3 titles; and the fact is, those titles look better on the 360 as well.

I would think the PS3 helped improving those titles there, too. Simple, if you have to write effective code on one (a must for PS3) that very efficient code will also run better on the 360. So, yes, taking the PS3 as a lead improves the quality on the 360 as well.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2860d ago
HeavenlySnipes2860d ago

as a gamer I HONESTLY do not notice all the miniscule jaggies that appear o a characters left shoulder or the sudden framedrop from 60 to 50 fps. How many of you can notice the difference in graphics from a gameplay video rather than screenshots? If no one labeled the different versions would you easily be able to tell the difference? I wonder why people think that the SAME DAMN GAME on a different platform IS SOMEHOW BETTER than ITSELF on another platform.


Jdoki2860d ago

As an owner of a 360 and PS3 I bought RDR on PS3 cus I prefer the DS3 controller, and my buddies were buying it on their PS3's.

The game was absolutely unplayable because of the abundance of missing grass and the lower resolution!! /s

Fact is, except for a few cases the differences between PS3 and 360 multi-plats is not as huge as fanboys make out.

For the two reasons above (plus a few others), I buy most multi-plats on PS3 unless there is such a difference that the actual game play is impacted.

Ivan Drago IV2860d ago ShowReplies(7)
HDgamer2860d ago

Suffer some times but nearly on most games it's nowhere near the fanboys sites make it out to be. Like Call of duty games, bad company 1 and 2, Unreal tournament 3, Batman arkham asylum, RE5, Burnout paradise, too many games.

Moonboots2860d ago

Exactly. Differences you would never notice unless you play them side by side. Sure these comparisons have some merit to dual console owners but in general most of the time the differences are minor and the single PS3 or 360 owner shouldn't feel like they are getting some broken game.

yippiechicken2860d ago

I think that's the point though. These comparison articles aren't meant for the single console owner. I own both HD consoles (and the Wii) and I do check out the comparison articles. If I have a choice between both versions, why wouldn't I want to pick the best version, even if the difference is very minor?

I don't have any strange obsession with one console over another, I just want the most bang for my buck.

SaberEdge2860d ago

yippiechicken, you said it perfectly. I don't have any loyalty to one console, so why wouldn't I want to get the best version I can for the consoles I own? If the PS3 version is better, like Castlevania, then I get that one. If the 360 version is better, like Red Dead Redemption, then that is the one I get.

I also think single-console owners try to minimize the differences to make themselves feel better, but the differences are actually very noticeable many times.


HELL YESSSSS !!!! SaberEdge that's exactly what I tell any fanboy that I meet or talk to. Get the best version for your console. I feel sorry for you single console owners because you don't enjoy the best of all consoles have to offer. If you can't afford it it's acceptable , but if you can , I feel bad for you guys. real gamer 4 life !

Infernostew2860d ago

Who cares? I've been gaming long enough that I don't care if there are a couple noticeable jaggies, pop in or even the dreaded frame skip. This was commonplace within the last decade of gaming but while I do agree it's unacceptable with the technology we have, it's not a game killer for me.

HeavenlySnipes2860d ago

someone that isn't a blind fanboy. I bet none of you would spot the difference between multiplat games if you were to watch 2 non labeled gameplay videos.

duplissi2860d ago

you probably should add most to that, cause some are downright horrible... ff13, mafia, orange box, etc.

SaberEdge2860d ago

Actually, things like screen tearing are much, much more common this generation. I am looking over my collection of PS2 and Xbox games and I don't think any of them had screen tearing issues.

That is the problem, I hate screen tearing with a passion. So if one version has it and the other doesn't I will go for the one that doesn't have it without a second thought.