Told ya so! Realtime MotorStorm gameplay on PS3...i mean PS2.5 -looks NOTHING like the E3 2005 CGI

http://www.gameklip.com/v/619/ realtime MotorStorm gameplay on PlayStation3. I told you the actual game would look nothing like the pre-rendered CGI that Sony showed last year at E3 2005. the actual game looks like Xbox++ or PS2++ ....or a PC game. enjoy your $400 or $600 PS2.5 (those in the U.K. pay even more, actually, since Sony isn't adjusting for the currency value) Bliggy Owned Yet Again

Air Raid, the more important question is whether not MotorStorm 05 demo graphics will EVER appear on the PS3. Anyhow, it IS a PS3. - Richard Hutnik

the answer is, the graphics of MotorStorm and Killzone E3 2005 trailers..... ( whether they were pre-rendered or realtime but sped up beyond what PS3 can handle) .....will NEVER appear on PS3. we'll have to wait for the NEXT gen of consoles, PS4 and the Third Generation Xbox

"Air Raid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> http://www.gameklip.com/v/619/ > > realtime MotorStorm gameplay on PlayStation3. > > I told you the actual game would look nothing like the pre-rendered CGI > that Sony showed last year at E3 2005. > > the actual game looks like Xbox++ or PS2++ ....or a PC game. > > enjoy your $400 or $600 PS2.5 > (those in the U.K. pay even more, actually, since Sony isn't adjusting > for the currency value) > > > > Bliggy > Owned > Yet > Again >

BO YA ! LOL... I actually laughed at that.. nice work. lol While I agree it looks nothing like the E3 05 video, I wouldn't go so far as to say that its Xbox or ps2 looking. I think it could definitely be done on a PC though. We still have time though. So lets revisit the argument when the game finally comes out.

that's why I said Xbox++ and PS2++ meaning somewhat beyond those consoles, but not mindblowing, instead of saying it looks like an Xbox or PS2 game. it's not THAT bad. but I've seen better graphics on Xbox 360 and PC.

"Air Raid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > that's why I said Xbox++ and PS2++ meaning somewhat beyond those > consoles, but not mindblowing, instead of saying it looks like an Xbox > or PS2 game. it's not THAT bad. but I've seen better graphics on Xbox > 360 and PC. > Fair enough. I didn't process the +++ sorry about that.

opps, i fucked up. the PS3 prices are $500 and $600 USD, there is no $400 price-point. haha

opps, i ***ed up. the PS3 prices are $500 and $600 USD, there is no $400 price-point. haha

Air Raid wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> http://www.gameklip.com/v/619/ > > realtime MotorStorm gameplay on PlayStation3. > > I told you the actual game would look nothing like the pre-rendered > CGI that Sony showed last year at E3 2005. > > the actual game looks like Xbox++ or PS2++ ....or a PC game. > > enjoy your $400 or $600 PS2.5 > (those in the U.K. pay even more, actually, since Sony isn't adjusting > for the currency value) > > > > Bliggy > Owned > Yet > Again

It's 50% complete, and most other titles were only 20% complete, which explains why Sony didn't show them off as much as expected. --

"Air Raid" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> http://www.gameklip.com/v/619/ > > realtime MotorStorm gameplay on PlayStation3. > > I told you the actual game would look nothing like the pre-rendered CGI > that Sony showed last year at E3 2005. >

No surprise there.. Was there any playable PS3 E3 game that didn't look like it was playing on the Xbox?

Air Raid wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> http://www.gameklip.com/v/619/ > > realtime MotorStorm gameplay on PlayStation3. > > I told you the actual game would look nothing like the pre-rendered CGI > that Sony showed last year at E3 2005. > > the actual game looks like Xbox++ or PS2++ ....or a PC game. > > enjoy your $400 or $600 PS2.5 > (those in the U.K. pay even more, actually, since Sony isn't adjusting > for the currency value) > > > > Bliggy > Owned > Yet > Again >

Looks good though. Weren't the target renders from INSIDE the vehicle though. That usually makes a difference in racing games as far as realism goes - the motion blur would be more intense for one (one of the things that kept the demo looking great).

blue wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

> Air Raid wrote: > > > http://www.gameklip.com/v/619/ > > > > realtime MotorStorm gameplay on PlayStation3. > > > > I told you the actual game would look nothing like the pre-rendered CGI > > that Sony showed last year at E3 2005. > > > > the actual game looks like Xbox++ or PS2++ ....or a PC game. > > > > enjoy your $400 or $600 PS2.5 > > (those in the U.K. pay even more, actually, since Sony isn't adjusting > > for the currency value) > > > > > > > > Bliggy > > Owned > > Yet > > Again > > > > Looks good though. Weren't the target renders from INSIDE the vehicle > though. That usually makes a difference in racing games as far as > realism goes - the motion blur would be more intense for one (one of the > things that kept the demo looking great).

The backgrounds look very impressive but the actual vehicles look a bit stiff. The animation is rather rigid and not quite next-gen standard. Look at the point where that truck veers from right to left. The truck should change light as it moves across the screen (in relation to the sunlight) but it stays constant. It does look good but not as impressive as the demo from last year. Oh well, perhaps the PS3 isn't as powerful as we've been led to believe. We'll find out in November. I'll have to eat humble pie if the machine isn't as great as the hype suggests, but a few more calories ain't such a big deal.:) Booby

I just watched the Motostorm trailer from last year - hmm. It looks a bit dubious to me. There's one or two shots from the same perspective as the new footage and it doesn't look the same.:( There is less detail, less mud as the jeep moves. Could we have been tricked into believing the games will look as good as the pre-rendered trailers? Having said that, I thought Warhawk in-game play had great next-gen graphics so who knows... the PS3 could still surprise us. Warhawk would seem the best indicator the PS3 can render super detailed graphics. Booby

"WiiWii" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:40a02$44657606$4213929e$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Air Raid wrote: > >> http://www.gameklip.com/v/619/ >> >> realtime MotorStorm gameplay on PlayStation3. >> >> I told you the actual game would look nothing like the pre-rendered >> CGI that Sony showed last year at E3 2005. >> >> the actual game looks like Xbox++ or PS2++ ....or a PC game. >> >> enjoy your $400 or $600 PS2.5 >> (those in the U.K. pay even more, actually, since Sony isn't adjusting >> for the currency value) >> >> >> >> Bliggy >> Owned >> Yet >> Again > > It's 50% complete, and most other titles were only 20% complete, which > explains why Sony didn't show them off as much as expected. > > --

They've got a lot of work to do before November then! If, what you're saying is true, Sony may well launch PS3 with no games whatsoever.

On 13 May 2006 05:02:15 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>I just watched the Motostorm trailer from last year - hmm. It looks a >bit dubious to me. There's one or two shots from the same perspective >as the new footage and it doesn't look the same.:( There is less >detail, less mud as the jeep moves. > >Could we have been tricked into believing the games will look as good >as the pre-rendered trailers? Having said that, I thought Warhawk >in-game play had great next-gen graphics so who knows... the PS3 could >still surprise us. > >Warhawk would seem the best indicator the PS3 can render super detailed >graphics. > >Booby

Honestly, I would have been pleasantly surprised if Motostorm looked as good as last years target video. Even if the PS3 is capable of those graphics, I wouldn't expect if from 1st generation game. I believe Sony wont even ship final dev kits to developers until June or July. I don't know if you remember all the hype that surrounded the early teaser footage of the next gen Madden, but the final product was nowhere near the target footage. Even Ghost Recon for the 360 failed to live up to the early video footage. It wasn't until the game was delayed for 3 or 4 months that the game finally started to approach the early footage, although imo, it never quite looked as good.

WiiWii wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

> Air Raid wrote: > > > http://www.gameklip.com/v/619/ > > > > realtime MotorStorm gameplay on PlayStation3. > > > > I told you the actual game would look nothing like the pre-rendered > > CGI that Sony showed last year at E3 2005. > > > > the actual game looks like Xbox++ or PS2++ ....or a PC game. > > > > enjoy your $400 or $600 PS2.5 > > (those in the U.K. pay even more, actually, since Sony isn't adjusting > > for the currency value) > > > > > > > > Bliggy > > Owned > > Yet > > Again > > It's 50% complete, and most other titles were only 20% complete, which > explains why Sony didn't show them off as much as expected. >

even though it's 50% complete, that does not change the fact that the final graphics will NOT be anywhere near the E3 2005 prerendered CGI trailer. even when MotorStorm is 100% complete it will still look much the way it does now. real-time graphics engines running on even the HIGHEST-END, most powerful GPUs, still do not look as good as modern pre-rendered CGI, even low-end CGI. add to that, the PlayStation3 does not even have the highest-end GPU. it's got the RSX which is heavily based on NV47 / G70 / G71, but downgraded in several areas (half as many ROPs (pixel pipe ends) and half the external memory bus width (128-bits wide instead of 256 bits-wide). the bottem line is, PS3 cannot do the slick pre-rendered movies Sony showed at E3 2005. Sony should've done what it did in March 1999 and E3 1999 when they showed REALTIME tech-demos running off of PS2 chipset (Emotion Engine, Graphics Synth). people critized even that, because the first PS2 games did not look as good as those demos, but later games actually surpassed most of the 1999 demos. Sony was at least being SEMI-honest back then (minus all the Sony crap about film-like graphics, and the MEDIA's spin about Toy Story graphics which did not come from Sony). but ever since they first started talking about PS3 back in 1999 (before PS2 launched) Sony has been talking and showing BULLSHIT. and now that the real games are finally emerging, we see just how much it was bullshit. I will still own a PS3, when the price comes down to a reasonable level. I will buy PS3 games. I don't totally hate Sony or the Playstation brand. but since I do actually support Sony with some Playstation-brand purchases (hardware, software) it's my right to criticize them. actually, i criticize Microsoft, Nintendo, Sega and back in the day, Atari, when I felt it was deserved. I watched this 100 MB MotorStorm video ftp://www.jeux-france.com/PlayStation_3/MotorStorm_1.wmv it looks pretty good as a game. but nothing that blows Xbox 360 away, and nothing approaching slick pre-rendered CGI graphics. it looks semi-next generation. this is a problem with alot of PS3 and X360 games, because their GPUs are not an ultra massive leap beyond last generation console GPUs. (but the CPUs are a big leap). the graphics leap from Saturn/PS1/N64 to Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/Xbox was MASSIVE.

Yeah, I can see the advertisement now: "Sony Model PS3 Blue-Ray DVD Player. DTS, Dolby 5.1. Remote control. Upgradable to gaming at a later date - $599" -Larry "Unmutual" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > They've got a lot of work to do before November then! If, what you're > saying is true, Sony may well launch PS3 with no games whatsoever.

but as I've been saying..... the PS3 is NOT capable of the E3 2005 prerendered graphics, (MotorStorm, Killzone) even in late-generation PS3 games. those prerendered graphics go beyond the limits of what PS3 can do, and we will not even see those limits until 5-6 years from now. could we see something like E3 2005 Killzone on PS3 that is very *significantly* toned down for realtime gameplay on PS3 in a few years? yes, definitally, but it won't be as good at what we saw in that slick trailer. lets say that the Killzone E3 2005 trailer was realtime (some say it was using realtime assests) but originally only ran at 2.5 to 5 fps on PS3, then sped up to 60fps for the impressive trailer presentation - that means PS3 is *nowhere* powerful enough to run Killzone (same applied to MotorStorm) lets say that, with later generation PS3 software, when developers can push the hardware much further, that allows for a 10-15 fps Killzone that *looks* as good as the trailer, well since 10 to 15 fps is not 60fps that is 1/6 to 1/4 the required power to run Killzone on PS3, as it was in the trailer with no cutbacks. now lets say, instead, that we want a 60fps Killzone on PS3, ok that can be done, but then the graphics DETAIL and quality will have to be dramatically reduced to hit 60fps. because PS3 is not powerful enough to "do" both Killzone trailer's graphical quality AND keep it up at 60fps. to acomplish *both* the detail/quality and the framerate, you would need a PS4 or ThirdGen Xbox. or even something inbetween Xbox360--PS3 and XboxThird--PS4 that has say, 4 to 6 times the performance of PS3. that could come in the form of another console or platform, like how Dreamcast was released between generations, or very early before the successful consoles came out. PC GPUs might be powerful enough in 2007-2008 to run Killzone graphics. that technology would be well ahead of PS3's RSX, although not as powerful as the future GPU for PS4.

On 13 May 2006 17:23:29 -0700, "AirRaid" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > >but as I've been saying..... the PS3 is NOT capable of the E3 2005 >prerendered graphics, (MotorStorm, Killzone) even in late-generation >PS3 games. those prerendered graphics go beyond the limits of what PS3 >can do, and we will not even see those limits until 5-6 years from now. >

And you know this how? Are you a developer with extensive programming and hardware knowledge?

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >could we see something like E3 2005 Killzone on PS3 that is very >*significantly* toned down for realtime gameplay on PS3 in a few years? > yes, definitally, but it won't be as good at what we saw in that >slick trailer. > >lets say that the Killzone E3 2005 trailer was realtime (some say it >was using realtime assests) but originally only ran at 2.5 to 5 fps on >PS3, then sped up to 60fps for the impressive trailer presentation - >that means PS3 is *nowhere* powerful enough to run Killzone (same >applied to MotorStorm) >lets say that, with later generation PS3 software, when developers can >push the hardware much further, that allows for a 10-15 fps Killzone >that *looks* as good as the trailer, well since 10 to 15 fps is not >60fps that is 1/6 to 1/4 the required power to run Killzone on PS3, as >it was in the trailer with no cutbacks. >

No, it just means that the engine wasn't optimized yet. Assuming the trailer was running in real time at 5fps, why is it such a stretch that with some time , they could get the game running at a steady 30 fps?

Quoted text (17 lines)

>now lets say, instead, that we want a 60fps Killzone on PS3, ok that >can be done, but then the graphics DETAIL and quality will have to be >dramatically reduced to hit 60fps. because PS3 is not powerful enough >to "do" both Killzone trailer's graphical quality AND keep it up at >60fps. > >to acomplish *both* the detail/quality and the framerate, you would >need a PS4 or ThirdGen Xbox. or even something inbetween >Xbox360--PS3 and XboxThird--PS4 >that has say, 4 to 6 times the performance of PS3. that could come in >the form of another console or platform, like how Dreamcast was >released between generations, or very early before the successful >consoles came out. > >PC GPUs might be powerful enough in 2007-2008 to run Killzone graphics. > that technology would be well ahead of PS3's RSX, although not as >powerful as the future GPU for PS4.

I'm a bit skeptical that Killzone will achieve the quality of last years trailer, but to dismiss it outright, before we've even seen the game in progress is just stupid.

"Imperium" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On 13 May 2006 17:23:29 -0700, "AirRaid" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > >> >> >>but as I've been saying..... the PS3 is NOT capable of the E3 2005 >>prerendered graphics, (MotorStorm, Killzone) even in late-generation >>PS3 games. those prerendered graphics go beyond the limits of what PS3 >>can do, and we will not even see those limits until 5-6 years from now. >> > > > And you know this how? Are you a developer with extensive programming > and hardware knowledge? >

No...he probably just has some common sense. We know what graphics technology is in the PS3. A high number of people have something every bit as powerful if not more powerful in their PC's. Killzone as it was in that trailer wont happen.

exactly.

In article <_Wt9g.28971$fG3.25362@dukeread09>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Yeah, I can see the advertisement now: > > "Sony Model PS3 Blue-Ray DVD Player. DTS, Dolby 5.1. Remote control. > Upgradable to gaming at a later date - $599" > > -Larry >

And possibly 499UKP over here in the UK for just the basic version. That's expensive!!

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Unmutual" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > They've got a lot of work to do before November then! If, what you're > > saying is true, Sony may well launch PS3 with no games whatsoever. > > >

-- Pete Ives Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

>No...he probably just has some common sense. We know what graphics >technology is in the PS3. A high number of people have something every bit >as powerful if not more powerful in their PC's. Killzone as it was in that >trailer wont happen. Game console architecture and PC architecture are completely different. Take for example the game Final Fantasy VII. The PC requirments are: Intel Pentium 133 (recommended Pentium 200) 4 megs Video Card (8 megs 3D accelerator recommended) 32 megs of RAM The Playstation's specifications are: R3000A 32bit RISC chip @ 33.8mhz 1 MB VRAM 2 MB RAM Does your "common sense" tell you that game should not run on the original Playstation, and barely on the PS2 with these specs: Playstation 2: 300 Mhz MIPS CPU (EE) 4 MB VRAM 32 MB RAM Keep in mind that when you run a PS1 game on a PS2, the PS1 game does NOT run on the main CPU (EE), but runs on a seperate processor called the IOP. The IOP is basically as PS1 CPU with its own 2MB RAM, and cannot touch the main memory. If you've taken a computer system design course what I'm writting below will make more sense, but you should still be able to follow it. A PC is considered a general purpose computer. Even if you bought it soley for gaming, it is still designed to handle all functions well. Game consoles are designed for playing games. Over time other features have been added, but the main purpose of a game console is games. Since game consoles are designed for games, the designers of the systems make optimizations which would not be possible on a general purpose computer. These include: Custom processors, usually RISC based Non-removable/upgradeable parts. Larger data busses 64 bit (PS1) and 128 bit (PS2), when PCs used 32 bits. Multiple processors/cores. RISC stands for Reduced Instruction Set Chip. RISC chips have fewer instructions then CISC ( like Pentium) based chips. This puts less circuitry on the chip, meaning these chips are easier to produce, cheaper, consume less power, put off less heat, and can have lower clock frequencies and still compete with CISC chips that have higher clock rates. Not having removable parts may sound like a curse, but it is also a blessing. Unlike PCs where parts can be changed, programmers can not really optimize much, since focusing on configuration will slow down the program for other configurations, and optimizing for all configurations is impractical. This is why programmers use libraries like DirectX and OpenGL. They optimize for these libraries, while hardware manufacturers write the drivers to interface the libraries with their hardware. This works, but the libraries add another level of abstraction, which causes the program to run slower. Game programers though can focus on one set of hardware, optimize for that hardware with less layers to program though. This gives better performance that PCs fight against with higher CPU speeds. The data paths allow more data to travel faster at the same time. 64 bits moves twice as much data at the same time as a 32 bit bus with the same speed. 128 bit busses move four times as much. Some PCs have dual cores. The PS2 has 1 main CPU, 2 VU cpus, and an IOP cpu. The PS3 has 9 core/cpus, I think. You PC has 2 at the most. The PS3 can perform 9 calculations at the same time, while your PC does 2. They are completely different things. And your assumptions about the PC world do not hold up in the gaming console world. -Mike

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> >No...he probably just has some common sense. We know what graphics >>technology is in the PS3. A high number of people have something every bit >>as powerful if not more powerful in their PC's. Killzone as it was in that >>trailer wont happen. > > Game console architecture and PC architecture are completely different. > Take for example the game Final Fantasy VII. > > The PC requirments are: > Intel Pentium 133 (recommended Pentium 200) > 4 megs Video Card (8 megs 3D accelerator recommended) > 32 megs of RAM > > The Playstation's specifications are: > R3000A 32bit RISC chip @ 33.8mhz > 1 MB VRAM > 2 MB RAM > > Does your "common sense" tell you that game should not run on the > original Playstation, and barely on the PS2 with these specs: > > Playstation 2: > 300 Mhz MIPS CPU (EE) > 4 MB VRAM > 32 MB RAM >

<snip> The difference is that the playstation and ps2 were using completely different graphics architecture to the PC so I agree that comparisons were not really valid. I would also argue that Final Fantasy VII is a poor example to choose. It was a very very crude PC port with little apparent effort spent in optimising it for the PC market. In saying that, the PC version will have run at a higher resolution than either the Playstation or Playstation 2 could muster. The PS3 is not using vastly different graphics technology. It's essentially using a mid-high spec Nvidia chip which is present in a very similar state in the PC. I'm well aware that the PC has additonal issues which can drag down performance but I can't see the PS3 outperforming a 7800GTX SLI system with 2 gig of Ram.

> I would also argue that Final Fantasy VII is a poor > example to choose. It was a very very crude PC port with little apparent > effort spent in optimising it for the PC market. That was the first game that came to mind. Perhaps the Grand Theft Auto games would have worked better? > In saying that, the PC > version will have run at a higher resolution than either the Playstation or > Playstation 2 could muster. Can you run GTA3 on your PC with 4MB of VRAM if you turn the resolution down to NTSC-like settings? Probably not. GTA3 is listed as requiring 16 MB VRAM. This still shows, as your agree, that the architectures are different. > The PS3 is not using vastly different graphics > technology. It's essentially using a mid-high spec Nvidia chip which is > present in a very similar state in the PC. I can't find any references younger then 1 year about the GPU. From what I can find, yes the GPU for the PS3 is based on family of nVidia chips currently in production. I would expect some tweaks to these chips though. Like, they probably COULD get rid of Text Mode, thats just speculation though. The GPU should be embeded in the mainboard like most game systems; this would give a slight speed increase but not much, though. > I'm well aware that the PC has > additonal issues which can drag down performance but I can't see the PS3 > outperforming a 7800GTX SLI system with 2 gig of Ram. In terms of graphics alone: Immediately, if you looked screen shots the PC would probably win. Later on, they'd probably be close. Even though its based on the same chip as used in a PC, there will most likely be ways of optimizing graphics codes for the PS3 that can not be done on the PC. That is assuming that you can get access to the GPU directly, or through system calls. If the lowest level you can get too is a library, like their version of OpenGL which is suppose to be there, then all bets are off. In terms of a complete game: It depends on many things. The CPU core of your computer, to start. If you drop such a card into a bad computer with a lousy CPU, then the PS3 would be able to out perform it. Highest end Intel-compatible multicore running a two threaded program, probably. However, the complexity of the program is also an issue. Running just a single threaded program, PC might win. Performing multiple physics calculations at the same time, PS3 wins. In terms of cost: Right now PS3 wins. Yes you can out perform a PS3 with a PC, but will cost a lot more then a PS3. Remember, gaming consoles actually lose money selling the consoles. They make money by liscensing games. At $600 Sony is going to lose money, meaning the users get it cheaper then what it cost children overseas to build it. So the PS3 wins on cost effectiveness, at least now and in the near future. -Mike

<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (64 lines)

>> I would also argue that Final Fantasy VII is a poor >> example to choose. It was a very very crude PC port with little apparent >> effort spent in optimising it for the PC market. > > That was the first game that came to mind. Perhaps the Grand Theft > Auto games would have worked better? > >> In saying that, the PC >> version will have run at a higher resolution than either the Playstation >> or >> Playstation 2 could muster. > > Can you run GTA3 on your PC with 4MB of VRAM if you turn the resolution > down to NTSC-like settings? Probably not. GTA3 is listed as requiring > 16 MB VRAM. > This still shows, as your agree, that the architectures are different. > >> The PS3 is not using vastly different graphics >> technology. It's essentially using a mid-high spec Nvidia chip which is >> present in a very similar state in the PC. > > I can't find any references younger then 1 year about the GPU. From > what I can find, yes the GPU for the PS3 is based on family of nVidia > chips currently in production. > I would expect some tweaks to these chips though. Like, they probably > COULD get rid of Text Mode, thats just speculation though. > The GPU should be embeded in the mainboard like most game systems; this > would give a slight speed increase but not much, though. > >> I'm well aware that the PC has >> additonal issues which can drag down performance but I can't see the PS3 >> outperforming a 7800GTX SLI system with 2 gig of Ram. > > In terms of graphics alone: > Immediately, if you looked screen shots the PC would probably win. > Later on, they'd probably be close. Even though its based on the same > chip as used in a PC, there will most likely be ways of optimizing > graphics codes for the PS3 that can not be done on the PC. > That is assuming that you can get access to the GPU directly, or > through system calls. > If the lowest level you can get too is a library, like their version of > OpenGL which is suppose to be there, then all bets are off. > > In terms of a complete game: > It depends on many things. The CPU core of your computer, to start. > If you drop such a card into a bad computer with a lousy CPU, then the > PS3 would be able to out perform it. Highest end Intel-compatible > multicore running a two threaded program, probably. > However, the complexity of the program is also an issue. Running just > a single threaded program, PC might win. Performing multiple physics > calculations at the same time, PS3 wins. > > In terms of cost: > Right now PS3 wins. Yes you can out perform a PS3 with a PC, but will > cost a lot more then a PS3. > Remember, gaming consoles actually lose money selling the consoles. > They make money by liscensing games. At $600 Sony is going to lose > money, meaning the users get it cheaper then what it cost children > overseas to build it. > So the PS3 wins on cost effectiveness, at least now and in the near > future. > > > -Mike

It looks like we're not too far apart in our thinking. I'm reasonably computer literate so I've got a fair idea about bottlenecks as far as PC systems go. Not too sure about the PS3 though to be honest. And you're absolutely right about comparing cost. As pure games machines, the PS3 and 360 are far better value for money that a top spec PC. The point I was trying to make though is that top spec PC's with better graphics technology than was announced for the PS3 (albeit a year ago) cannot do Killzone trailer graphics. You could chuck two graphics cards together both of which are higher specd than the PS3 announced graphs technology and it still couldn't do it. In fact it couldn't even come close. I accept that it's not a like for like comparison but I don't think it's far enough off to surprise me on this point. I'm not knocking the PS3. Despite the negative press I'm sure it will be a cracking machine. It will probably also win the next gen battle though not by as large a margin as it won the last round, but I'm a realist. I don't really pay attention to hype and that's why I wasn't disappointed in Sony's showing this year. One thing's for certain though......unless I see something an awful lot more dramatic than I have so far, I wont be picking one up at launch. Launch games are notoriously poor for any system and my 360 will be into the 2nd wave of games by then. Probably when the 2nd and 3rd wave of titles come in for the PS3 it'll be time for me to part with my cash. Hopefully by then the price will have dipped a little as well! Andrew

Air Raid wrote: It's 50% complete. Deal with it. --

well it looks and plays just like Powerside from... 1998 anyway here's a first person view which looks much better (I will hunt down all 3rd person racing players! :) ) http://www.gameklip.com/v/695/