ah, but a ps3 will always play ps3 games well. A pc doesn't necessarily have the specs to run every pc game.
Also, the ps3 may be less powerful, but the games look and play the same.

Also, what are the 5 orange boxes under my name for?

Ok, the PS2 and Wii version ARE CRAP.
The principle components of TFU: Euphoria, and DMM, are not present in lesser versions.
TFU utilizes the Ronin engine, LucasArts-developed specifically for 7th-gen. consoles, meaning porting it to computers takes time and would likely result in a lesser experience. Havok, Euphoria, and DMM were all made to work together (and with Ronin), something was I'm sure was a bitch to do on consoles. Porting it to computers would be suicidal.
Resolutions blow. PS2 and Wii can't do HD, PS3 and 360 can.
I believe the FPS is locked on PS3, and Xbox 360 versions, not sure.
Not to mention, the words were "too processor-intensive to typical computers.
Again, we don't want another Crysis.
Portable versions (PSP, N-Gage, iPhone) aren't even the same game, but tell a similar story. They shouldn't even be compared, but It's worth noting because if I didn't, omebody else would scream foul.

Oh god, this is going to turn into a geek war...

I'm sure I'd be just as happy with a PC as I am with my 360, but I've already made the investment. =P

As for FPS stories, Bungie did a pretty good job with the Halo Series story (though 3's campaign wasn't spectacular, and they could have tied up the story far better) but it only makes a mite of sense if you read at least three of the books that explain it, which do a good job laying it out, but are poorly written (as are all video game books, I assume).


And believe it or not, the Call of Duty games have a pretty good story. So elegant in its "war torn squad loves each other" cliche.


TFU is going to be great. =D

Dansariki wrote:1.9-2.1 teraflops.

Sources on that please? Incidentally, GPUs are ideally suited for physics calculations - see nVIDIA's new drivers for 8000 series and up cards that add physics processing, and the folding@home version that runs on GPUs. They have hundreds of stream processors which are ideal for doing lots of simple, repetitive calculations - like drawing graphics or physics calculations. All figures I quoted were from typical computers, as reported by Steam's hardware survey, which is about as accurate a sample of gamers as you're going to get.

Sure, porting it to/developing concurrently on PC takes time. Porting it to/developing concurrently 360 from PS3 or vice versa takes time too, but they do that.

GEEK WAR

Oh shut it DC :P
Sh¡t. Jumped at the wrong statistic.
From original Sony Entertainment Press Release:
Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance : 218
GFLOPS

From Wikipedia Article on PS3 Hardware:
"...204 GFLOPS single precision float and 15 GFLOPS double precision."

It should be noted, the PS3 only has one traditional core- the PPE.

Still, the PS3 isn't equal to an average computer, which is what LucasArts didn't want to run TFU on.
Graphics cards are best for parallel computing, where the hundreds of cores get used to their best, and the Cell Processor builds on that.
The Xbox 360 is actually better at general purpose computing, while the Ps3 is far faster on software designed to run it.

Does it really matter which is more powerful? The games look and run the same on both.

David Cat wrote:Also, what are the 5 orange boxes under my name for?

Your warn level. Don't really need to say much else.

I would like it if I knew a bit more about these terms...

wrote:Does it really matter which is more powerful? The games look and run the same on both.

Is the Wii the same as the Xbox 360?

Well, I didn't think we were including that waste of space in this discussion.

That waste of space which has left the PS3 and the 360 in the dust in sales?


Dansariki: so basically, I was right? =D

wrote:And the point I am trying to make is that something which does ask you to pay attention is infinitely more rewarding than something which is spoonfed to you.

Sometimes you just need to mindlessly shoot things :D (virtual things, I mean. No need to get the wrong idea).

Sentynel wrote:That waste of space which has left the PS3 and the 360 in the dust in sales?

Yes. I think it's because "family" gamers finally have a system they can buy, and so they did.

Anyway, 360 ftw. I may get a PC when I get some cash.

FuzzyLobster wrote:

wrote:And the point I am trying to make is that something which does ask you to pay attention is infinitely more rewarding than something which is spoonfed to you.

Sometimes you just need to mindlessly shoot things :D (virtual things, I mean. No need to get the wrong idea).

Certainly, and there are far better mindless shooters than Bioshock, and ones that don't interrupt the blowing stuff up with any of this story crap. As I mentioned, UT2004 is a particularly fine example of the genre.

Bioshock is not a mindless shooter, IT HAS A GOOD STORY.

My point was, Bioshock is *not* a mindless shooter. Where we disagree is that I don't think the story elements are up to scratch either.

Sentynel wrote:Certainly, and there are far better mindless shooters than Bioshock.

That implies that Bioshock is a mindless shooter.

Fuzzy said sometimes you need a mindless shooter. I said there are far better games than Bioshock to satisfy that need to mindlessly shoot things.

Yes, but saying that there are better mindless shooters than Bioshock is not the same as saying that Bioshock is not a mindless shooter.

Have I made myself clear now?