DICE Comments on New Xbox, PS4, “We Think We’ve Pushed PS3, 360 Boundaries”

DICE has been under the spotlight ever since Battlefield 3′s announcement, mainly due to how they’re utilizing the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. The Swedish-based developer has now said they think the current console generation’s boundaries have definitively been pushed.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
smurfz2614d ago

New PS console won't be happening for at least two more years. A new Xbox, that's closer imo. It's really burnt to the core.

Captain Qwark 92614d ago

yes even though it has many games that are just as pretty as anything on ps3

Heartnet2614d ago

Maybe so but xbox atleast needs a new Disk format even with the added gb onto dvd's its not enough :)

Captain Qwark 92614d ago


that i agree with esp as we start seeing games with more detailed res like BF3 and apparently rage, but if you can fit a game like skyrim on 1 dvd i think its okay for now.

aCasualGamer2614d ago

I think it's fair to say that both consoles are on their endrun. If you compare the PC games that are coming out to their console version counterparts then you'll see what i'm talking about.

I hope both Sony and Microsoft come up with a new architectural interface for their consoles that will hold up to PC's ever evolving hardware.

I would bet that we'll be seeing some official pictures of these next consoles before 2013.

nix2614d ago

Third party devs saying we've pushed PS3's limits amuses me.

evrfighter2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )


If the pc vs. 360/ps3 versions of bf3 don't convince you its time for new hardware you're better off playing wii. Or your cell phone's app store

Compare console bf3 to your game of choice all you want. I'll just point to what you console people could be getting. Or what you're missing out on rather. I'm not trying to rub anything in your face. But if you fools continue to put up a front and not show any interest. You'll be stuck with your ancient tech for years to come.

zeeshan2614d ago

I am sorry what? What? I have seen the PS3 footage and really, it doesn't look half as good as KZ3 or Uncharted 2 or Uncharted 3.

AAACE52614d ago

The strange thing is, all these developers talk about hitting the ceiling with these consoles. Yet more gets done every year.

I remember crytek said crysis 1 could not work on current consoles, yet it is now a downloadable game.

Im getting tired of all the bs claims.

RyuCloudStrife2614d ago

What have you been smoking Sir? Xbox 360 games don't compare to PS3 games in ANY way, shape, OR form. PS3 games are better in all aspects.

BattleAxe2614d ago

I hate these stupid comments that seem to always come from DICE and Crytek. Sure their games look good, but they haven't maxed out shit on the PS3. The only two Devs that comes close to making that claim true are Naughty Dog and Sony Santi Monica, but even with Uncharted 2 ND said that the PS3 wasn't fully maxed out, and U2 looks 10x better than BF3 or Crysis2 on consoles.

andibandit2613d ago

Alot of you people need to wake up. Sure you could push the boundaries a bit more, because the fully optimized code only exists in theory.

How much do you squeeze a lemon before getting the next one?. Sure i bet you could get a few more drops if you put all your weight into it. After that you could get a hammer from the shed and hammer another drop out of it.
After that you could hijack a bus, and put the lemon under one of the tires, and drive over it.
The point is when do you say "i've gotten as much as can be gotten from that lemon"?.

Also you need to realize that a game's utilisation of ressources can not be measured by graphics alone. Graphics is only a piece of the puzzle. Im sure that BF3 would look much closer to UC3 if it didn't have huge maps, destrution, vehicles on land and in the sky + boat loads of enemies, all going on at the same time, bulletdrop and so on and so on.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2613d ago
2614d ago Replies(6)
Tr0llFace2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

Im sorry but killzone2 looks better than BF3 so how is dice pushing the PS3? Im using killzone2 a an example to be nice because if i use Killzone3 or Uncharted2/3 as an example it will be like comparing crysis on PC to a Nintendo WII game.

MerkinMax2614d ago

I don't really want to argue, but people compare looks rather than what the game engine is actually doing. Killzone engine and Frostbite are accomplishing much different things.

Spinal2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

Sigh... u sure are clueless.
BF3 has open huge maps with Destructible environment and vechiles for land, air and water. All this going at the same time is why the graphics had to be toned down on consoles.

NONE of the games u mentioned have any of that going on. NONE of them.

Try to understand that.

And they had to lower the player cap from 64 players to 24 on console. RAM is a big deal an consoles r maxed out there.

An i have all consoles aswell as my gamin rig.

Hufandpuf2614d ago

"killzone 2 looks better than BF3"

No it doesn't, and bf3 has huge open maps with vehicles andante air combat with 24 players. Looks really don't mean anything at this point.

SignifiedSix2614d ago

Lol at all the idiots agreeing with troll. KZ2 or 3 have noting on BF3. They don't even do half the process' BF3 does. Huge destructible maps compared to tiny corridor maps with scripted destruction. Vehicles compared to no vehicles. Think before you post sh*t, please...

Ju2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

"Killzone engine and Frostbite are accomplishing much different things."

Yes, they do. And it just shows a brute force approach like in BF3 is not needed. BF3 must scale down to static environments where ever they can to make this work on consoles. That said, at the end, those two games are not that different.

Frostbite2 is overkill for consoles; even though nice to allow everything to be dynamic. This just doesn't make sense with current consoles and doesn't look better, either - it looks good, but I do not believe Dice are wizards and have hand optimized SPU cycles like ND (or Guerilla) did after their 3rd generation. There is room for optimization.

Dynamic environments just safes time in development (reduces pre-baking if you want). But that's about it.

frostypants2614d ago

Tr0llface, Killzone and Uncharted are awesome, but neither have much of any destructibility, and BF3's and BFBC2's maps are also much larger. They also have to handle more objects with all of the vehicles.

Graphics aren't everything. Otherwise we'd be sitting here asking why the character models in Killzone 3 are so inferior to those in Heavy Rain. When you think about it, the answer is pretty obvious.

xtreampro2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

You're the biggest stealth PS3 fanboy on this site. On the surface you sound like an unbiased guy but all of your comments are always slightly in favour of Sony or PS3 exclusives ALWAYS!

You use your technical know-how to take a stealthy jab at anything unrelated to Sony and for that I will no longer take your comments seriously when it comes to any technical discussions.

You have pretty much succeeded in trolling so here's your award

Rettom2614d ago

Destruction itself takes a chunk out of FPS, so of course it won't look as good.

Ju2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

@xtreampro, how is that stealth? I favor the PS3 and I do not like MS. No secret about it. Yet, I respect for what MS achieved with the 360 and I usually don't troll 360 articles. If this makes me a fanboy, so be it. Get over it.

reynod2614d ago


Nevermind Ju hes a fanboy who mindlessly argues in favor of anything Sony. He's pretty much blind and under some delusion that the Cell is some super Chip from the future, he will use Sony's marketing garbage that he memorized back in 2005 to convince people about how powerful the PS3 is. Wake up Ju we are in 2011.

Glorfff2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )


killzone 2 and 3 and uncharted are tiny little corridor shooters with 5 enimies on screen and a bunch of pre-rendered backsrounds on uncharted.

Killzone 2/3 use ridiculusly low res effects and tons of smoke in an attempt to blur the terrible jaggies and artifacting.

Uncharted 2 looks very good, true, possibly the best looking console game, but it still looks very low resolution when compared to any AAA pc game from the last 3-4 years and it is ANCIENT looking compared to BF3 on pc even at medium settings.

Imagine how good uncharted 3 could look if ND had a PS4 to work with, with 4gb ram, 1 gb vram and a 4ghz i-7 2600 like specs

Then you would see their imaginations run wild, there are stagnated and cramped and force3d by the old ass architechture to make a game that will end up looking alomst exactly like uncharted 2.

I was in the Uncharted 3 beta, it looked downright Ancient compared to any AAA pc game from the last 3 years.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2614d ago
princejb1342614d ago

people always claim how they pushed the boundaries to the ps3 but no game still looks better than MGS4 and thats like what a 3 year old game

Legion2613d ago

Yep... that MGS4 was one crazy movie.

Iroquois_Pliskin2613d ago

yep, whatever makes you sleep better at night. I'm still waiting for MS to come up with a AAA game on MGS4's level

Chocoboh2613d ago


MGS4 was a sequel for the fanbase you had to know the story and played the previous games to be drawn and it truly drew me in. No game out there now a days does that with their series.

Legion2607d ago

Did any of you 2 actually play the game? Tell me how the game play was? Graphics were good. Story was awful!!! Gameplay was just blah... the game lived off of it's fanbase nothing more. Nothing innovative about the game other then it looked good. How did it push the boundaries? What boundaries did it push?? It really was a lot of movie with a little gameplay thrown in, and the movie wasn't that interesting.

Ok... I only played the game for the weekend at my friends house... but we played it long enough to know that we enjoyed the original old school Metal Gear games over this new thought of what Metal Gear is compared to the NES days.

So I understand that you love your fanish titles but when fanboys start hating on a series just because it goes multiplat then the fanboys really start showing their colors.

And as for the AAA titles at the level of MGS4??? I could name some AA games at higher level then MGS4. MGS4 was not a AAA title in many peoples eyes. It has to have some kind of gameplay for that. It isn't even the best that PS3 has to offer... you got the Uncharted series that towers above MGS4 and even Resistance has more of a story (not much) and better gameplay then what MGS4 has to offer. Even ME2 on PS3 out shines MGS4.

MGS4 was not the game that you needed to plug in this AAA title debate.

princejb1342607d ago

@ legion

i love mgs4, is a stealth game so of course it may seem slow but it was still awesome not including all the scenes
story was great because it connected all 3 previous metal gear solid with the unanswered questions in the previous 3
only because you didn't enjoy it doesn't make it a bad game
i hate gears of war and you don't see me going into those articles writing fanboish comments on em

Legion2607d ago


So you liked the game... good for you. As for it being a stealth game... yep I love my stealth games and go out of my way in games that give me a stealth option to play as such. That is the main reason I tried out MGS4. That and I had to play what everyone was talking about. I don't consider it a bad game... just a blah game. Nothing new other then graphics and I didn't consider it AAA in the least. (of course that is a personal opinion)

As for being a fanboy... well I will be the first one to tell you when a game does live up to what it should or could be, regardless of what system it is on.

After seeing some of your past posts about Ratchet and Clank and FF games then I can see why you didn't like Gears... not your cup of tea. But did you ask yourself why you hate Gears of War? Did you play them? Or they just don't fit your type of game? When I hate a game/ or dislike it or even just not appreciate a game.... I will play it first before giving my 2 cents. (and then of course if I do not like it then I will give you probably a dimes worth of issues to talk about)

I will be the first to support a game if it is good though. Shadow of Colossus and Ico set was great. Two old school games that deserved a revival. But I don't like them just because I am a fan of them like you might be with MGS, I like them because they each are really good games with good story and gameplay that survives the years and works on the PS3 even today.

Are my comments fanboyish...? I would say they are anti-fanboyish because I make the remarks based on actual experience and not based on just an opinionated experience being a fan or not of a system or series.

I liked Two Worlds 1 & 2... I totally understand how each game is awful in the eyes of some but at least they were fun RPG games. Too many glitches for some and bad voice acting in the first turned most away... but I thought it added to the entertainment. To each their own and I understand your love for MGS4... you are after all a fan of the series, and could care less that the game was just blah.

princejb1342607d ago

@ legion
dude i comment on what looks interesting and i believe i did praise gears in previous articles posted on this site
i praised it because it gets a lot of sales for a reason
as for me yes i had the first gears when i had 360 didn't enjoy it cause its not my cup of tea

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2607d ago
Glorfff2614d ago


ps3/360 are almost exactly the same as far as power and both terribly old!

PS3 has better/more in house devs, thats why you see a few small handful of exclusives outshine the 360.

We should have had new consoles a year ago, devs are sick of the crappy results they are getting.

50Terabytespersec2613d ago

Nobody has pushed the PS3 except Exclusive Developers only 3 or 4 come to mind.
The only games that do so far are #1 GT5 prologue(best viewed on a Bravia TV!, God of War 3 !, and Uncharted all of them ,Killzone , and perhaps Motor Storm and Wipeout HD,
other than that the rest are shovel PC ports that claim to be pushing the ,unique design of the SPU GPU Cell split Rambus Memory architecture! That is BS!! I want GOD of War 4 !! then lets talk next Gen!!!!! And GT6 !!!1080p!!!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2607d ago
dangert122614d ago

I used to like dice but they lie too much, every one knows you can't push the ps3 limits by keeping it as good as the 360 version no offence but its a less capable machine

aquamala2614d ago

That makes no sense, if you ever play games on a pc you know there's all kinds of graphical settings you can adjust so a game is playable on a $100 video card but a $500 can play it at much higher setting. There's nothing that stops a dev from having one setting on xbox and another on ps3, IF the ps3 can play at a higher setting.

buddymagoo2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )


Microsoft stop devs taking advantage of the PS3 and its Blu Ray

dangert122614d ago

have you never noticed with 3rd party devs who make multiplat games, why the pc is waaaaaaay up there taking advantage of some of the best hardware...then the Ps3verision is the same as the xbox verion dispte being better dispite devs saying they built there engine around cell dispite the fact the ps3 has shown to be more powerful? even the devs admit this but there software does not do you not wonder why? all these devs saying were ready for a new gen we've maxed out these consoles were as loads of mutliplats look as good or better then xbox exclusives but no multiplat looks as good as the best ps3 you not ask why?

iamgoatman2614d ago


The reason the PC versions of multiplats look waaaaaaay better is that the hardware is waaaaaaay better, not because the PS3 is deliberately being held back.

Do you really think the PS3 version of multiplats would get anywhere near the PC versions even if the 360 wasn't somehow holding everything back? The PS3 is ancient compared to modern PC hardware.

gamingdroid2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

The fact is, I haven't seen a single game that makes either console "superior" to another.

That's just BS the fanboys spew to further their agenda, because anyone can look at the games and tell that are virtually identical, optimized exclusives or not!

Now you compare a PC to console, and even on my [email protected] GeForce GTS 240 (yes, a $40 graphics card) and the difference is staggering.

aquamala2614d ago

@danger, multi plats look better on PCs and look about the same on consoles is because PC is much more powerful while xbox 360 and PS3 are about the same. you realize current gen consoles are 6 years old with only 256MB of system ram and 256 of video RAM, that's ancient by PC standards.

if you think ps3 is so powerful why can't it play games at 1080p with 8x anti aliasing, because it can't.

yes I have a gaming PC, PS3 and Xbox 360.

frostypants2614d ago

iamgoatman, I think you missed the point. The PC is not held back because it is not viewed as direct competition with consoles, plus virtually all PC gaming is done on a Microsoft platform so they still get a cut. The argument is that Microsoft is deliberately making it difficult for developers to differentiate their PS3 versions from the 360. The proof is in the titles, for example the aforementioned limited number of multi-disc 360 games (because that would highlight a weakness, thus MS discourages the practice).

Blogz4Fanboyz2614d ago

lol @ danger and buddymagoo you two are know nothing clowns, and that link you posted is nothing but rumour and "analyst" assumption.

so danger, seeing as you know so much about development, please tell us which studio you work for and on which games????? and look at the agrees lol

i have both, and bottom line is this. the ps3 shines because of its 1st party studios. if microsoft had the same amount, then i think we would see the same results on the 360.

you fanboys on here know not alot, so please dont talk like you do

Dark_king2614d ago

@frostypants MS doesn't get a cut from any games on PC unless it uses GFWL.This is the main reason PC games tend to be cheaper then their console counterparts.
Now on topic,Dice is full of it the game doesn't may out either console.You need to understand that maxing a system out is technically impossible.You will always find a way to push it a bit harder.Now I believe they pushed it to a point they are satisfied with the quality,but maxing out both system while maintaining the games will be the same on all platforms statement no.
They could at least get 32 players on the PS3 without hitting the graphics enough for most people to notice a difference.

TripleAAARating2614d ago

funny that no one here would comment on buddymagoo's link.... It's right in your friggin faces, MS knows that they got an inferior product, why else would they take these kind of drastic methods
"Microsoft is protecting an inferior technology, and that's why the company's content submission and release policy appears to be so restrictive for developers and publishers."

It's right in your faces lololol

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2614d ago
Persistantthug2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

But I think we'll potentially get the opportunity to see this with STARHAWK.

I don't accept or believe that 24 max players is all that the PS3 is capable of, and neither should anyone else.

leogets2614d ago

mag is 256 players bro. nuff said right ;)

electricshadow2614d ago

@ leogets & Persistantthug

Keep in mind though that MAG didn't have the best graphics, destructible environments or effects going on that BF3 has.

SignifiedSix2614d ago

Mag also looks like a ps2 game. "Nuff said" ;)

vyke32614d ago

MAG looked better than BF3 on consoles and it had waaaaaay bigger maps.

frostypants2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

Who disagreed with electricshadow??? All he said was that MAG lacks the destructible environments and graphics of BF3...which is not an opinion, it's a freaking fact.

@vyke3, no, MAG did NOT have better graphics than BF3 or even BFBC2. Are you nuts? Try actually playing them. Graphically, MAG is the roughest looking FPS on the PS3 aside from Rainbow Six Vegas. Even the original Resistance is prettier.

Look, MAG supports a lot of players, and for that it should be applauded. But let's PLEASE not pretend that it wasn't a generation behind in gameplay and graphics. The weapon ballistics, the animation, the audio...all of it was just "blah".

Think of it this way: if MAG was only 24 vs. 24, would it still be a very good game? No, it would be painfully average.

MAG was the only PS3 exclusive I've ever sold back to the store.

Cosmit2614d ago

Oh please don't give me that. MAG looked horrible. Has to be one of the worst looking games this generation. I applaud zipper for trying something new on the PS3 and going for a very massive player count. But come on man. Even you know it looked bad. And to say it looks better than BF3 is just not right man.

I enjoyed it for quite some time but graphics were utter poop.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2614d ago
iamgoatman2614d ago

More capable how? Both consoles share the same limitations, pitiful amounts of RAM and severely outdated GPUs, with the PS3's GPU actually being inferior to the 360's.

You may sight exclusives as being an example of the PS3's hardware superiority, but the only reason they tend to look superior is that Sony invests huge amounts of money into their first party studios to build propitiatory engines that are tailored specifically to the PS3's architecture. Now if MS did the same thing we'd likely see similar results, but MS know their games will sell without the need for huge investments in graphics anyway.

Now Battlefield games are known to be very RAM hungry, which is why the consoles will have less players than on PC. Also in comparison the PS3 exclusives that are known for their visuals are very linear, as you just can't get away from that RAM limitation. Do you honestly think the likes of Killzone would look as good with Battlefield size maps? Because you'd have to be deluded to think such a thing.

To claim that a developer, and an incredibly well respected developer at that, is lying just because they aren't dedicating vast amounts of resources and money tailoring their new engine to one specific platform, is just plain stupid.

It's getting increasingly boring hearing the same thing from the PS fanboys on this site, how apparently a dev is lazy or bad if they can't use the PS3 to it's full potential as if it was considerably more powerful than the competition. Both consoles are handicapped, both have limitations and the differences between the 2 in terms of graphical power is marginal at best.

bioflex2614d ago

exactly dude, you just cant get enough of PS3 fanboys. How they think the ps3 is superior really surprises me. If for anything they should be thankful they got a bigger disk size cos thats the only saving grace for the ps3, if not it would have been much worse.

Persistantthug2614d ago

Consoles do pretty well despite their half gig of total ram because of careful programing optimizations.

Because of these careful optimizations, For games, What takes a PC 1 to 2 gigs of ram to accomplish, the current consoles are capable of accomplishing with 512MB. Disk Streaming, Harddrive streaming and greater use of of CPU, all of which lowers the ram overhead.

The results? Almost everytime, A console end product that performs better than the equivalent PCs MININIMUM SPECIFICATIONS.

You seem to think there's only 1 way to skin a proverbial cat.

By the way....Infamous 1 and 2 were open world and looked great. Infamous 2 especially.
Just sayin.

qwertyz2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

correct. crysis 1 on consoles is currently the best looking console game and has fully destructible MASSIVE environments and its a multiplaform. both consoles are roughly equal in power its just MS that doesn't have the first party talent to push their console as much as sony does this is common sense but some ps3 fanboys don't have no common sense what so ever.

even the pc verison of BF3 running minimun settings will look better than ANYTHING on consoles lol ust like crysis 2 lowest settings(gamer) looks better than anything on consoles including uncharted 3 LOL

PC>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>& gt;>>>>>>> >>>>>>>ps3 /360

DrFUD2614d ago

iamgoatman, you obviously smoked so much crack you made the crack man so rich that Bill Gates wants to hang out.

DaTruth2614d ago

"but the only reason they tend to look superior is that Sony invests huge amounts of money into their first party studios to build propitiatory engines that are tailored specifically to the PS3's architecture. Now if MS did the same thing we'd likely see similar results,"

When have you ever heard devs say, "360 is hard to develop on"? They don't, because 360 has a non-specific architecture! Every dev makes games to cater to the 360's architecture because 360 has the same architecture as PC; that's why porting from PC to the 360 is considered easy!

So what you are saying in your post is that 1st party devs tailor their game engines to the PS3's superior architecture! That is why PS3 is superior!

Hence, PS3 is superior to the XBOX 360!

iamgoatman2614d ago


"So what you are saying in your post is that 1st party devs tailor their game engines to the PS3's superior architecture! That is why PS3 is superior!"

How the hell did you get that from what I said? I never once said the PS3's architecture is superior, you put that in there. I also never said the problem was with the PS3 being hard to program for.

What I said was Sony invests large amounts of money into their 1st parties to develop propitiatory engines designed specifically to cater to the PS3's hardware, which why their games tend to look better. Nothing about the PS3's hardware or architecture being superior, because it isn't.

My whole point was, which it seems most people completely missed, that because Sony dedicates large amounts of resources specifically to the PS3 you see greater results than what you see on the 360 because MS doesn't do it to such extreme levels. Understand? It's all about optimization not hardware superiority.


I wasn't talking about PC's being better, so you missed the point. And consoles DON'T perform better than minimum PC specs, unless the minimum is super low. But considering most min specs consist of a dual-core with a 8800 series or there abouts, at the equivalent settings, consoles have no hope it hell of performing better. I have an old PC that pretty much IS the minimum specs required for modern games, and it always performs better than the consoles.


That made no sense what so ever, but at least your username fits.

A-Glorious-Dawn2613d ago (Edited 2613d ago )


Hang about, that's just wrong.

Minimum specs on PC does not out perform console.
I have BC2, Crysis, COD on my PC and tried them on Minimum and to say that out performs console is just a terrible attempt to validate your arguments....

Also you misinterpreted DaTruth's comment,
He didn't quote you saying that the PS3's hardware is superior, he is pointing out that your comment basically implies the PS3 is superior...

As for my opinion it's negligible, I don't know the details of both consoles hardware great enough to say for sure which is more powerful, I can only call what I see and it's obvious no game has matched uncharted this gen (to deny it is being self deceptive) , but that could well be more to do with ND than the PS3....

OT: I think DICE is right in a way, the boundaries have been pushed, but only with the type of game they are trying to make. That is as far as a semi-open world real time destructive fps is going to get on the consoles. This however, does not mean there are no more boundaries left to be pushed. There are still many more kinds of games that need to progress and can do greatly with the current generation of hardware. EG fighting games, RPG's and small scale arcade shooters can still be pushed.
Indeed as I mentioned before ND are showing that the TPS/Adventure game genre can still be improved upon. It's all relative.

So there is no, end all boundary, just limits to certain ideas.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2613d ago
dangert122614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )


I'm aware of that but I'm asking why is the ps3 version simply not better then the xbox 360 verision? I know It won't be waaaaay better cos they have alot more In common they we like to think but the Ps3 is better then the 360 yet mutliplat games dont reflect it and they say theyve maxed it out how? pc will all ways be in a league of its own

@bioflex i'm a ps3 fanboy because I think devs should back up what they say?

dev: 360 Is superior hardware

games comes out looks identical O_o

dev: we've maxed consoles...

no they haven't maybe on but not the other
Naughty Dog has pushed the Ps3 futher then anyone visually and they say they havent even maxed what?

gamingdroid2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

Most people can't, because it is an opinion not based on facts, let alone the fact that artistic direction tend to have a far bigger impact on visual perception.

Now, if you want to ask expert, look no further than David Shippy whom is the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3:

"Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores… it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."

"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."

He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."

A-Glorious-Dawn2613d ago


Your quoting David Shippy?

I have no problems with this but he has let it been known before that he thinks more performance can be leveraged from the PS3's multi spu architecture and that hardcore coders could perhaps get more performance from it.

Either way his opinions have been criticized, In his book he is vague and favours prose over precision. Giving off very strange impressions.

Read it in totality, it's really quite interesting.

ZBlacktt2614d ago

They lump both in there to not single out the other all for sells.

xtreampro2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

BF3 pretty much maxes out both consoles. The reason why you think both games shouldn't look the same is because you have the wrong understanding of the capabilities of both machines. You still think the PS3 is far superior to the 360 when it isn't, the PS3's Cell processor has a lot of theoretical power but it definitely wasn't made for game development which is why it's one of the biggest mistakes Sony made.

On top of that the PS3's GPU is worse than the 360's, the only reason UC3 looks so good is because it's not even doing half of what BF3's doing. They even have a dedicated team (Ice Team) just to figure out how to use the dam Cell Processor.

The console versions of RAGE & Crysis 1 run on the 360 and they look 100x's better than KZ3, they're technically and graphically achieving more on-screen as well. Another example is Dark Souls, Demon Souls was a PS3 exclusive yet Dark Souls looks so much better and it's on the 360.

elshadi2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

lol at this comment
their is so many dumb things in that comment
but i will only talk about this:
"The console versions of RAGE & Crysis 1 run on the 360 and they look 100x's better than KZ3, "
that why crysis 1 is 8.5/10 in gfx from IGN and from all the big sites ????
and rage ???????? the game has more problems
than a crazy man in asylem
with all the pop in -screen tearing-drop framerate - nothing happen on screen at all and i could go on

kz3 wipe the floor with both games when we talk about technically and graphically :
(no pop in -alot of things happen on screen-locked 30fps - no screen tearing)
along with the best FPS gfx on consoles

DaTruth2614d ago (Edited 2614d ago )

How bout this one!

"the PS3's Cell processor has a lot of theoretical power but it definitely wasn't made for game development"

When did the Cell debut? In the PS3!

What is the primary purpose of the Cell? Facilitate PS3 functions!

What was the Cell primarily developed for? The PS3!

Seeing as how the primary function of the PS3 is to play videogames, it seems we could assume the Cell was made for game development!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2613d ago
psb2614d ago

they can push it, if they're making a superior PS3 version. I do think DICE have said on record, that the PS3 version looks better than the 360 one due to some tech it offers them with.