I don't believe StahlFaustus was suggesting that at all, but he'll have to answer for himself.

It's a common mistake that people equate PC and console architecture and try to extrapolate conclusions from that but they're really totally different. The discussion above of the weirdness in the PS3's architecture should give you sufficient hint of that. Consoles also have the advantage of providing more direct low-level access to hardware which is something you can do when 100% of your target audience is on the same platform, so things cut both ways - while console hardware is slower on paper, that lower-level access can make up for it, particularly in cases where API overhead is a bottleneck on PCs. Where API overhead is not a bottleneck (or the bottleneck is sufficiently lower) PC pulls ahead.

Read this: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=61567 (the second post is particularly instructive).

My own experience in PC space is that AMD are significantly stronger at geometry throughput whereas NVIDIA are much better when it comes to fillrate. I've seen simple screen overlays or render to texture passes pull AMD down to half performance whereas NVIDIA barely even blink an eyelid at it, while start pushing polygon counts to stupid levels and AMD come to the front, being able to take extremely high counts that bring NVIDIA to their knees.

For a more balanced test that stresses both, I can push 1,000,000 fully dynamic particles at 15fps on Kepler but same at just over 20fps on Northern Islands, so even in that case AMD can still pull ahead, even with previous gen hardware vs NVIDIA's current gen. I still prefer NVIDIA for driver quality overall, but there's nothing like some hard figures to wipe away any fanboyism.

The plural of anecdote is not data however and it may be the case that my private benchmarks are sufficiently limited to only be reflective of other conditions prevailing when I've run them.

Oh ya, They do have their pros and cons indeed, they are both different. Whether or not GPUs perform any different on a console, I have no idea. On the PC side I do know that ATI has always had trouble with their drivers. Whether their card is better in a raw test however, no one will ever know for sure because of that fact. I guess I should have clarfied myself better

I doubt sony restricted them from allowing Doom 3 BFG to be installed on the hdd. I mean the game isn't nearly the size of RAGE and a partial install would've helped tremendously.

And yes I did notice the lack of flashlight shadows, missing blood spatter, missing imp shadows/plasma gun shadows right away.

I hate to break up the coding and preformance talk, but in all honesty the minor graphical issues don't really seem all that important to me when playing a game from 2004.

The control issue, on the other hand, is a very big deal. How hard is it to add a few lines of code to let players swap out the sprint button? I love Doom. I have since 1993. I bought this game for my PS3 day one, and it has been sitting on my shelf after a day or two of play the Doom 1 & 2 ports because Doom 3 is basically unplayable with the sprint button mapped on L3.

Id.... Bethesda... anyone? Can you just please fix this? I'd really like to play this game I bought.

Yep, that is another huge issue I have with the game. It seems ridiculous they put the flashlight on l1 when theres an unused circle/B button right there.