DCharlie said:
i remember days when minor differences like sparks were the absolute proof of one machines 3rd party supremacy.
I pressume they are more important that, say, frame rate , texture quality, etc. given these differences aren't worth discussing!
we just need to just call it and have done :
at the moment, X360 third party games are usually better than the PS3 versions.
PS3 1st party games have tended to be better than X360 1st party games technically (but some are taking longer to "bake")
You remember Burnout 3 and Burnout Revenge, not the last generation as a whole. Those games were anomalies. It was VERY uncommon for XBOX and PS2 multiplatform games to appear as close as those two games did.
The average difference between an XBOX multiplatform releases and the PS2/GC versions of the same game was HUGE. Much larger than any of the differences we see today. What has made comparisons so "popular" between the 360 and PS3 is simply the fact that the games are so damn close. The differences between them are not easy to pick out at first glance (in most cases) and require a new found level of scrutiny to determine. Multiplatform releases have never been as good as they are this generation.
Just think back to previous console cycles...
When talking SNES versus Megadrive, for instance, each machine had their own unique characteristics. The SNES could display 256 simultaneous colors while the Megadrive was limited to 64 colors. This alone made a huge difference in how the visuals appeared on screen. Then you have to consider the difference in sound quality. Of course, the Megadrive had a bit of an advantage with its faster CPU. Comparisons made today would have made no sense in the context of these machines as the differences between multiplatform releases could be spotted immediately.
The same exists when talking about PSX, Saturn, and N64 comparisons. The differences between multiplatform games were generally pretty significant to the point where, again, you could tell which was which from a simple glance. People praised RE2 on the N64 (which was impressive for its day), yet in reality, it would be considered a garbage port by todays standards. The capabilities of the machines were so drastically different that you could never offer the same experience across all three machines. The absolute WORST 360 to PS3 ports are still light years beyond even the best attempts during this generation. You would always end up sacrificing something significant due to the radically different hardware.
Last gen was as I said above. Each machine had a very different architecture. The PS2 simply wasn't capable of the techniques common in XBOX titles (shaders, for instance). Even games designed initially for the PS2 had a tendency to fare much better on the XBOX. In the rare instances where games were ported from the XBOX to the PS2 things were even worse. Splinter Cell anyone? How about Wreckless?! Ouch.
Things have never been better for multiplatform releases. Your sparks example suggests that you have forgotten just how far we've really come. Very few multiplatform games were as close as those released by Criterion and, even then, they were still limiting themselves by focusing on the PS2. It's just that the game LOOKED good enough that it didn't matter. Had they designed the game with the XBOX in mind I doubt a PS2 release could have compared.
The difference in textures, framerate, and image quality of modern multiplatform games wouldn't even REGISTER by previous generation standards.
Side note: Would people stop bringing up f*cking Killzone 2?! At the very least, those hyping it are driving more people that DISLIKE the game. It will likely be a decent game in the end, but all of this hype will drive people to slam the game at every turn. Just look at Uncharted. If you were to go by the forums, you'd swear that game was one of the worst games released this generation. There is this HUGE backlash against games that receive hype.
