3DS is reportedly Nintendo's most powerful console ever

[jamesworkshop]

To provide stereoscopic 3D effects the system must have the ability to render each game field twice, one for each of the player's eyes, a technique that will require significant horsepower to produce," claims the report.

Errrmm....No, the 360 is not a 8800GT, it's equivalent to whatever Radeons were around in 2005...X900 or whatever they were, and similarly, the PS3 is based on a GeForce 7900. If they were 9800GTX+'s, then the home consoles would be able to achieve 1080p, which currently, they struggle with greatly.

there

Look at benchmarks - the 360 has the power of the 8800GT. And the PS3 is more powerful due to the Cell doing a lot of graphics such as AA and depth of field etc hence 9800GTX
There is a lot more than just claiming high resolution = good graphics. Any video card can do a desktop at 1600x900, what you need to know is the complexity of the images, such as shading, plus the textures will still be of a low quality, AA, AF etc.

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1221220064z22MekJUpa_5_2.gif

Quite a big difference, double the resolution and double the max frames with 2xAA


Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Both games run at a sub-720p resolution of 1024×600
(360 + PS3)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-4-engine-analysis

Yeah, think is how do you know if the game is well optimised for the consoles? =\
The have different CPUs to a standard PC as well as different architecture, with the PS3 having a lot of power usually ignored in the SPU's.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,703669/Mass-Effect-2-Galactic-battle-Geforce-versus-Radeon/Practice/ GTS250 = 9800GTX+.
Being a bit of a graphics whore it is quite clear that many multiplatform games aren't optimised for consoles. Compare Uncharted 2 which looks pretty bloody good, even by PC standards, and put that next to MW2, which looks like a jizzy tissue even on PC.
Ideally some kind of benchmark software would be nice, but alas, not going to happen for this generation unless someone is really bothered about knowing each systems full potential.

Optimization doesn't really matter since no platform has had more work than the other so the only differnce is horsepower.

MW2 stacks up quite nicely to UC2 as well (60 fps vs 30 fps), its not night and day like farcry to farcry 2

Wow hang on there, optimisation counts for a massive load. The 360 has special coding which needs to be implemented to reduce content size of games to fit them onto DVD as well as three PPU cores, whereas the PS3 has a CPU which can be used for graphics unlike any other CPU on the market.
The reason exclusives look so nice on consoles is purely optimisation and there is always a massive gap between exclusives and multiplatform games - Dante's Inferno and God of War 3 for example.
Uncharted 2 blows the hell out of MW2 when it comes to graphics, and I was playing MW2 maxed on my PC so I know what it looks like at true HD resolutions. U2 has procedural animation, better textures, better models and better everything in terms of graphics.

exactly without platform specific optimaizations the pc still runs (MW) at double speed and double quality

coding doesn't change the number of available cpu cycles or video memory bandwidth.
all cpus can render graphics, software graphics were what doom (and others) used before dedicated 3d hardware was made, software shadows (cpu) for instance are done in all versions of GTA4 PC/360 included.

the animation is motion captured in uncharted 2 (body and face), Spore used procedural animation


http://www.gamerexchangezone.com/files/2212/4571/5277/uncharted2screenshots.jpg
http://www.officialpsds.com/images/stocks/CALL-OF-DUTY-MW2-SCREENSHOT-stock3143.jpg

That's because PC's can just chuck sheer horsepower to get through no optimisation. Try running MW2 on a PC with the same specs as the 360 - 512RAM. Not going to happen.
CPUs can render graphics but they are so utterly useless at it there is no point in trying to get them to do it. Just run one of Futuremarks programs on an i7 if you don't believe me.
The Cell can do graphics at a level far beyond that of any CPU out in the market.
I seriously doubt the shadows in GTA4 are CPU based, it'd make no sense to do that and would really hamper performance.
The animation is motion captured to begin with but procedurally generated:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/uncharted-2-mastering-the-cell-blog-entry

Plus these two shots show the in game comparison far better as you used a promo-shot for MW2 which tend to be ran through photoshop or at least at a graphics level higher than ingame:
http://www.go386.com/culture/images/uncharted-2-among-thieves-20090115041035897.jpg
http://whoisbill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/modernwarfare2.jpg
Notice the low AA, the low textures etc etc. I've played both, and there is no doubt that MW2 just isn't that good graphically - the lighting is actually quite crap as the optimisation has everything turn to a blur at a distance of 20ft.

yeah so the ps3 isn't at the level of a 9800gtx because its too fast,
you didn't say the cell was better you stated it was the only one to have the capability of graphics rendering

you can't be motion captured and procedural at the same time just like you can't be both rendered in real time and offline rendering at the same time
Motion capture involves animation using telemetry data, proceduraly would be using a mathmatical equation like a scene demo or Spore which has too because your 3d model could look like anything unlike uncharteds designer 3d models

MW2 doesn't look as good as uc2 but that isn't the point its just as intensive because its out putting twice the frames

In terms of rendering lighting etc the PS3 has the same power as the 9800GTX if you compare PC exclusive performance vs PS3 game performance.
You don't quite get procedural animation do you? What you do is you motion capture some of the basic animations, such as reloading, and then use procedural animation to adjust for it for when he is say reloading but crouched, or behind a wall etc. It basically gives a lot more animation possibilities with far less hassle.
Think you are mixing procedural animation with procedural generation.

what exactly are you saying is the animation pre recorded using that method or does the game actually waste real time cpu cycles generating an animation.
Mo-cap is expensive, doing things procedurally (which means generated) is used mostly when storage spaces cannot hold scripted animations/data
I don't see why that would be a problem on a 50gig disc and is a lot less hassle than making algorithims and is far more believable in quality terms

It's called blended motion and is a use of procedural generation to create procedural animation, in the same way procedural effects can be used for destruction and geometry creation.
Waste real time generating animation? I don't think you appreciate the 1000's of animations that are possible in modern games that means motion capture simply isn't feasible. It's nothing to do with storage and mo-cap really isn't expensive - Epic Games have a motion capture station in their studio which is no more than 7 ft by 12 ft. It's a case of to have someone go through all the possible animations would take far, far too long and with the right muscle and bone constraints, the animations are more than believable as it generates B from motion captured A and C. Think you won't find anyone who says the animation in Uncharted 2 is bad or anything near that.

Naughty dog is british the UK only has 4 motion capture facilities in the entire country I didn't say UC2 had bad animation quite the oposite because it was motion captured which is more belivable then animation created by artists.
either way you still didn't answer the question is the animations the players sees on screen being performed procedurally or was the procedural effects done ofline to created a scripted animation which is then played in which case the animations are not procedural.
Naughty dog had the time and the budget to not have to make comprimises

 

[Brotherofwill]

Still don't really get the "3DS" Thing, I mean I get the pun.

So you get it? I don't get how you don't 'get' it despite clearly getting it by explaining it.