Why are Sony consoles always so technically incompetent?
PS1 couldn't do proper 3D.
PS2 couldn't do 480p (640x480) which the 3dfx Voodoo 1 was capable of in 1996.
PS3 wasn't faster than the Xbox 360, despite being one year newer and significantly more expensive.
PS4 can't handle 1080p / 60fps even though PCs have been able to do so since 2007 / 2008.
>PS3 wasn't faster than the Xbox 360
"Faster". What do you even mean? It was slower? It had a slower disc drive, is that what you mean? Graphically the PS3 was usually a hell of a lot better than the 360. At least games ran native 720p on the PS3 rather than 560p upscaled like the 360.
>PS4 can't handle 1080p / 60fps
But it can. Not on every game sure, but there are games that run at 1080p 60fps.
>PS4 can't handle 1080p / 60fps
It's not like the ps4 can't handle it, most devs want to push the limits or they just suck at coding
>PS2 couldn't do 480p
Plenty of games did it. Off the top of my head I can think of God of War 1 & 2, Ratchet and Clank 2 & 3, Jak 2 & 3, Outrun 2006...
In most cases it takes a technical miracle though, especially Ratchet. The PS2's VRAM is absolutely fucking tiny and it's impractical to do 480p in most games. Most games ran at 512x480i.
>PS1 couldn't do proper 3D.
Texture mapping doesn't have anything to do with whether the 3D is "proper" or not
>PS2 couldn't do 480p (640x480) which the 3dfx Voodoo 1 was capable of in 1996.
Yes it could, depending on game. GT4 even did 1080i.
>PS3 wasn't faster than the Xbox 360, despite being one year newer and significantly more expensive.
If you actually made use of the SPUs instead of programming like a barbarian it was, which becomes evident when you consider how much better Uncharted 3 looks than any of the 360's show pieces.
>PS4 can't handle 1080p / 60fps even though PCs have been able to do so since 2007 / 2008.
That's such a ridiculous statement. You might as well say the PC has been able to do 1080p since the 90s since there were 1080p computer monitors back then and you could run DOS on them, but is that a valid comparison? If you put a game with 2007's graphics standards on the PS4 it'll run at 1080p60.
>GT4 even did 1080i
I'm pretty sure that's just upscaled.
Given that the PS2 only had 4MB to store its framebuffer and all its textures, native 1080i isn't happening.
>i-it's the developers fault, not muh precious Sony
Kill yourself
you sure proved me wrong senpai
Because people would still buy from them, regardless.
Just like they add rootkits to their games and almost whatever they put on CD/DVD/BD, but nobody gives a shit.
DOOM is a 1080p 60 FPS game on the PS4, so clearly the hardware itself can handle it.
I don't know, even on ultra Doom doesn't look all that impressive to me. Is it the art?
Both Doom and Wolfenstein run at 1080p60 on both PS4 and Xbox One if I remember correctly. Just goes to show that both systems are capable of it.
>Texture mapping doesn't have anything to do with whether the 3D is "proper" or not
The whole concept of perspective is integral to 3D though. It used polygons (3D data objects), but it didn't look like real 3D because the perspective was fucked.
>Yes it could, depending on game. GT4 even did 1080i.
Like 5 games ever did proper 480p. GT4 didn't do real 1080i, all they did was copy the same pixels 4 times across the horizontal axis.
>If you actually made use of the SPUs instead of programming like a barbarian it was, which becomes evident when you consider how much better Uncharted 3 looks than any of the 360's show pieces.
All the SIMD performance in the world can't make up for the PS3's horrible memory bandwidth limitations.
Uncharted 3 only looks decent because the engine is hard coded for the console. Not even Gears of War 3 was that. Uncharted 3 takes shitload of technical shortcuts if you know where to look though.
>If you put a game with 2007's graphics standards on the PS4 it'll run at 1080p60.
Well yeah, that's the thing. Plenty of PS3 HD remakes literally are 2007 games and they at 30 FPS on PS4. And don't say "b-b-but no optimization", PC games are virtually never optimized and they still manage to run fine.
Sony consoles are designed to generate completely ridiculous theoretical specs while being much more flawed in real world settings.
The PS1 was designed to crunch polygons at an insane rate. Too bad it couldn't draw a texture properly or keep vertices consistent.
The PS2 was designed to crunch polygons at an insane rate. Too bad that it had no VRAM for a decent resolution, so that must games ran at 512x448i. Too bad that it had so little VRAM that there's rarely room for mipmaps to ease load and prevent texture shimmering. Too bad that half the power in the console is locked to the VUs that require hand-built microcode to use effectively. Too bad the RAM was so high latency.
The PS3 had pretty insane specs too. Too bad it lacked unified RAM, had a GPU that was directly inferior to the 360's, and had all its power locked away in the SPUs. Basically the same thing as the VUs, but now there are 6 instead of 2.
The PS4 is the exception, because it was never technically impressive.
>Mfw people pretend like CDs are better than carts for anything but shitty cutscenes
You can have voice acting. Because a shitty story is way more important than gameplay.
Conker had full voice acting and I will never understand why so many games on N64 didn't if it was possible all along. Everyone else just incompetent?
It cost a lot.
>PS2 couldn't do 480p (640x480)
There were plenty of games later in PS2 life cycle that did 480p
Gran Turismo 4 even did 1080i
>PS3 wasn't faster than the Xbox 360, despite being one year newer and significantly more expensive.
But that's wrong, PS3 had more powerful hardware but Cell was a bitch to work with hence early multiplats all being better on X360
I think so. Resident Evil 2 was a good port on the n64 too, with cutscenes and voice acting intact.
Even the ps1 could do 1080p 60 fps, if it was a blank white image
>Gran Turismo 4 even did 1080i
Nope, it's literally 640x448 upscaled.
>PS3 had more powerful hardware
Everything in the console was less powerful than 360 except the CPU had faster SIMD performance. That's literally it.
please, never post again
you wanted to be smug, but in the end you made yourself look like a total dumbass