Since the PlayStation 3 hardware's inception, I wondered about just how powerful it really was. On paper, it was deemed the most powerful hardware simply based on the fact that it has the Cell processor. Some say that Sony "nerfed" the Cell processor to make production costs lower (since it was already going to be expensive), while others say that it just has untapped potential. Now that both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 have been out for a while, cross-platform comparisons have been made, and in most cases titles are identical on both.

The Beginning...
One particular area of interest,however, is Sega, whose games shed light on the continued analysis of the PS3's true power. Since their Lindbergh arcade hardware is PlayStation 3-compatible, home ports are said to be smooth and easy. It cannot be denied that Virtua Fighter 5, Virtua Tennis 3, and other games developed on their PS3-compatible hardware look nice. When you see them in action, you think, "Sega used the PS3 hardware to create these cool visuals; you can even see the pores in their skin!" The first time you see VF5, it looks crazy real. In due time, of course, VF5 and VT3 came home to the PS3 so that these stunners could be enjoyed in the comfort of living rooms all over the world. And, of course, the transition from the arcade to your living room was smooth (thanks to compatible hardware). At the time, there wasn't really much out, so the home release of VF5 did a good job of showing what the hardware could do. It was a good kick-start for the system (since the VF series is so popular in Japan), and there's no doubt it moved units; even at that high initial price of the PS3 and the game at launch, it was still cheaper and more compact than buying the arcade version.

Some time after that, XB360 versions of these games were released, and put under the microscope accordingly for comparison. After all, these titles were being ported over from superior hardware, right? Surprisingly, it was widely agreed upon that the games looked better on the XB360. This was odd because the titles were originally developed on the PS3 ("more powerful hardware"), but looked just as good (if not better) on the XB360 ("inferior hardware"). A majority from all corners of the scene claims that "jaggies" make the PS3 ports look inferior to their XB360 counterparts. I wasn't quite sure to what extent this was the case, but after seeing for myself, it's difficult not to agree. The same is said about Armored Core 4 (also developed originally for PS3), and there's a good chance Dynasty Warriors 6 and Dynasty Warriors - Gundam are seen in the same light. The point? That these titles were all originally-developed for the PS3. So, why does this even matter?

This all matters because arcade hardware is often compatible with certain home consoles, and ports from the arcade tend to optimize the said compatible console. A quick example of this is with Tekken 3, which was powered by PlayStation-compatible arcade hardware and utilized the PlayStation console to its full capacity when it came home. Likewise, most game fans saw this relationship in the following generation with the Naomi, System 246, and Chihiro arcade hardwares, which were compatible with the DreamCast, PlayStation 2, and Xbox consoles (respectively). With that in mind, just how much of the PS3's potential have developers like Sega and Namco tapped with games like Virtua Fighter 5 and Tekken 6? Sure, those maybe considered "launch games" or "early titles," and some say that it took developers a long time to tap the potential of previous Sony consoles, but has anything changed in the time elapsed?

...Of...
One of the few big PS3 exclusives, Yakuza 3, is finally out, but I was shocked to see that this game is supposed to be optimizing the hardware. With the import-only "Kenzan!" spinoff already used to test the waters of the hardware, and so much development time, Yakuza 3 doesn't really look as good as you'd think it would. Faces and models don't look too bad, but the effects and environments don't seem very impressive at all from what I saw. I didn't see every area or part of the game, but from what I did see nothing looked out of the XB360's reach. For some reason, the game just didn't seem to look as good as the trailer footage. Many say the same about the critically-acclaimed Metal Gear Solid 4 (and it's still the subject of long-running XB360 release rumors), which they also say was "nerfed" when the final specs for the PS3 were changed suddenly (as discussed at the Beyond 3D forums).

Rants from developers on how difficult it is to program for the PS3 can be found just about anywhere on the net. But there's one that stands out from the rest; a vocal developer on the Beyond 3D forums who states that "porting from the PS3 to the XB360 is easier than from the XB360." I am no programmer, and it is possible that this person was paid to say what he said, yes. I won't rule out the possibilities of corruption! But then we have the port comparisons mentioned earlier, which support what he says. And when so many others in the developer community are saying the same thing, you know something's up; it's always something about how the Cell processor isn't meant for running games. Again, there's still the aspect of lazy programmers (which is always a factor), but if what they say is true...

...does that mean that the XB360 is the more powerful machine because the port relationship is not reciprocal? If developers are porting to the XB360 from the PS3 with ease, but not able to do so the other way around, wouldn't that make the PS3 the weaker of the two? Is it possible that Sony made the weakest hardware (and that Microsoft made the strongest) for a third generation in a row? Did Cell alterations make the system weaker than expected? Some say that the Cell is more suited for straight number-crunching and things like audio, so even if no alterations were made, would the PS3 still suffer from inefficiency? Is the PS3 weaker than originally thought due to the Cell's RSX dependence? Some say that the Cell isn't really even meant for games, and that RSX dependence just hinders it more. John Carmack (father of Doom) states similar things in an interview, and again, I'm not a programmer, so I don't know all of the things they might know about hardware. I do see the logic in the points he makes, though, and one of the things he talks about is efficiency. In the interview about porting, the developer describes the PS3 as the "lowest common denominator," which is a very powerful statement that questions the established view of the hardware's power. These are the things I think about as I look into getting the new Tekkens, Soul Caliburs, Virtua Fighters, and Armored Cores, especially when the XB360 runs these native PS3 games while running free chat and/or downloads at the same time. If the PS3's processor is as poweful as Sony has led everyone to believe, then why can't the PS3 do the same? Cross-title chat sessions between players playing different games has been an issue since launch, and the reliability of its only-recent implementation is questionable; wouldn't a "super computer on a chip" have been able to carry out such a trivial task with ease, from the start? This is something that I have wondered about since a friend brought it to my attention, and though it is a small thing, it is one particular point, one interesting detail, that is baffling. Apparently it doesn't do everything.

...The End?
I'm not saying that the PS3 "sucks," it's just that it seems to live in the shadow of the XB360, rather than cast one over it. The hardware doesn't fail as a whole, it just fails to show anything that the XB360 can't do. Nothing on the PS3 looks like it can't be done on the XB360, and many developers have proven that very point as they broke exclusivity deals one after another. Virtua Fighter 5, Dynasty Warriors 6, and Dynasty Warriors - Gundam to name a few, and even the bastard "father of Final Fantasy" broke FFXIII PS3 exclusivity and set the game for an XB360 release, too (a surprising fact to those who don't remember the N64 days, and a sickening truth to those who do). The bottom line here is that it comes down to the games, and if there are hardly any exclusives on the PS3 that are worth having, then it makes it harder to pay so much for it. Will I own a PS3 in the future? Yes, and if Capcom or SNK makes an irresistable exclusive for it, I'll have it sooner. But by the way things are looking now, I ain't paying no three bills for it! Metal Gear Solid 4 and the Ninja Gaiden Sigmas can wait; I'll buy those and the Lost Planets for their exclusive content, but with that high price tag it won't be anytime soon. Sony needs to get a lot more to the table for us to "play beyond" Blu-Ray and a handful of exclusives.