Originally Posted by Mornelithe
Most programmers would also know that a game that's specifically designed for performance on the PS3 would have to be completely reworked and redone entirely, in order to even function on the 360. I'd really like to see them chopping out 16g of data, fit it onto the 360, and have it look even remotely like the PS3 version. On top of that, most programmers also know that a game made by SCEA, would obviously never show up on a 360. Also, I'm pretty sure most programmers are aware that you can't use motion sensitive controls on a console that has no motion sensitive....controllers. Again, it would be a completely different game than what was released for the PS3. So sure, take out a ton of audio, video, motion sensitive functionality, and you got yourself a great game hehe....
Actually I was told by one of the lead programmers at Bioware that the coding for that game was horrible which is why it took up so much space. There just wasn't a real reason to take up space. I remember when I was twelve and IBM had this screen saver that had snow falling down in front of their logo. This same friend (then only 11) said it was horrendous programming. The .exe file was about 110k and he programmed the same thing and it took up 4.5k
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the supremacy of the PS3 but in reality it's not close graphically. That is a big difference to me. It doesn't matter what happens but you can post all the technical data you want about size of this and that. Why not post results of what it's actually capable of graphically? Right because then you'd see the 360 stomps it.
It doesn't matter if it can pass more data if it can't render correctly.