quetz67 said:You did, no way of closing it again
I think 512MB are enough for a long time. In my strong belief good graphics are not made of just huge textures, but a good mixture of polygon detail, textures (that do fit in 512MB) and shaders and of course realistic lighting.
We will see lots of PC games that excel PS3/360 games in texture size and I know some believe thats the holy grail of graphics, but who needs textures that still look perfect in screenshots of 3000 pixel width? (see Crysis)
Yes I am a graphics whore but if a game is lame enough to let you care about that amount of detail, something is probably wrong.
512MB hasn't been enough for pc games since about 2k3. Console gamers should be lucky epic goaded MS into adding that as both sony and ms intended originally to go with 256MB. The reason you need more memory is bigger worlds, better textures, better shaders, aa, and af. Not only that but it isn't 512MB devs have to play with both 360 and PS3 take up a certain level of memory with the os in the background so it's somewhere in the mid 400MB range. I'm more realistic about this subject ram drives up a console price like crazy we jumped way too early into the level of graphics we have because devs now have to fight between storage space of the dvd, fps, and fillrate requirements being eaten the most by the hd jump.
Lastly I love your posts it's uncanny to see how you will spin spin an issue in favor of these two consoles. Saying the absolute best graphics maybe too much but that gimped bottlenecked consoles are somehow right despite a variety of valid complaints being launched against them.